On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:06 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 7:27 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, at 9:58 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > > > pg_archivecleanup currently takes a WAL file name as input to delete
> > > > the WAL files prior to it [1]. As
Greetings,
* Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Thanks for the comments. Here's a new tool called pg_walcleaner which
> basically deletes (optionally archiving before deletion) the unneeded
> WAL files.
>
> Please provide your thoughts and review the patches.
Alr
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 7:41 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> * Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > Thanks for the comments. Here's a new tool called pg_walcleaner which
> > basically deletes (optionally archiving before deletion) the unneeded
> > WAL fi
Greeting,
* Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 7:41 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > Thanks for the comments. Here's a new tool called pg_walcleaner which
> > > basically
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 5:33 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 25.04.22 20:39, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > All of which isn't an issue if we don't have an external tool trying to
> > do this and instead have the server doing it as the server knows its
> > internal status, that the archive command has
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 8:48 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> Greeting,
>
> * Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 7:41 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > * Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the comm
Greetings,
* Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 8:48 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 7:41 PM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > * Bharath Rupireddy (bh
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:09 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> I was thinking more specifically along the lines of "if there's > X GB
> of WAL that hasn't been archived, give up on archiving anything new"
> (which is how the pgbackrest option works).
IMO, this option is dangerous because the users mig
Greetings,
* Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:09 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I was thinking more specifically along the lines of "if there's > X GB
> > of WAL that hasn't been archived, give up on archiving anything new"
> > (which is
On 5/3/22 17:17, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Bharath Rupireddy (bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com) wrote:
The pg_walcleaner tool isn't intrusive in the sense that it doesn't
delete the WAL files that are required for the server to come up (as
it checks for the checkpoint redo WAL file), apart f
On 25.04.22 20:39, Stephen Frost wrote:
All of which isn't an issue if we don't have an external tool trying to
do this and instead have the server doing it as the server knows its
internal status, that the archive command has been failing long enough
to pass the configuration threshold, and that
11 matches
Mail list logo