Re: [HACKERS] wal_segment size vs max_wal_size

2016-09-30 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 9/26/16 8:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Kuntal Ghosh >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Amit Kapila >>> wrote: IIRC, there is already a patch to update the minRecoveryPoint >

Re: [HACKERS] wal_segment size vs max_wal_size

2016-09-30 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/26/16 8:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Kuntal Ghosh > wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> >>> IIRC, there is already a patch to update the minRecoveryPoint >>> correctly, can you check if that solves the problem for you? >>> >>>

Re: [HACKERS] wal_segment size vs max_wal_size

2016-09-26 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> IIRC, there is already a patch to update the minRecoveryPoint >> correctly, can you check if that solves the problem for you? >> >> [1] - >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2016

Re: [HACKERS] wal_segment size vs max_wal_size

2016-09-26 Thread Kuntal Ghosh
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > IIRC, there is already a patch to update the minRecoveryPoint > correctly, can you check if that solves the problem for you? > > [1] - > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160609.215558.118976703.horiguchi.kyotaro%40lab.ntt.co.jp > +1.

Re: [HACKERS] wal_segment size vs max_wal_size

2016-09-26 Thread Amit Kapila
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> There is apparently some misbehavior if max_wal_size is less than 5 * >> wal_segment_size. >> > >> This should probably be made friendlier in some way. But it also shows >> that b

Re: [HACKERS] wal_segment size vs max_wal_size

2016-09-26 Thread Kuntal Ghosh
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > There is apparently some misbehavior if max_wal_size is less than 5 * > wal_segment_size. > > For example, if you build with --with-wal-segsize=64, then the recovery > test fails unless you set max_wal_size to at least 320MB in > PostgresN

[HACKERS] wal_segment size vs max_wal_size

2016-09-21 Thread Peter Eisentraut
There is apparently some misbehavior if max_wal_size is less than 5 * wal_segment_size. For example, if you build with --with-wal-segsize=64, then the recovery test fails unless you set max_wal_size to at least 320MB in PostgresNode.pm. The issue is that pg_basebackup fails with: pg_basebackup: