On 2021-06-16 17:36, Dean Gibson (DB Administrator) wrote:
Is this reasonable thinking?
I'd think that one would want a *wal_keep_size* to cover the pending
updates while the standby server might be unavailable, however long
one might anticipate that would be.
In my case, I get a complete re
On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 23:58, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Le sam. 19 juin 2021 à 02:13, Dean Gibson (DB Administrator) <
> postgre...@mailpen.com> a écrit :
>
>>
>> Granted, but the same question arises about the value for
>> max_slot_wal_keep_size. Setting either too low risks data loss, & setting
Le sam. 19 juin 2021 à 02:13, Dean Gibson (DB Administrator) <
postgre...@mailpen.com> a écrit :
>
> Granted, but the same question arises about the value for
> max_slot_wal_keep_size. Setting either too low risks data loss, & setting
> either too high results in unnecessary disk space used. The
On 2021-06-16 18:02, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 05:36:24PM -0700, Dean Gibson (DB Administrator) wrote:
Is this reasonable thinking?
I'd think that one would want a *wal_keep_size* to cover the pending updates
while the standby server might be unavailable, however long one m
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 05:36:24PM -0700, Dean Gibson (DB Administrator) wrote:
> Is this reasonable thinking?
>
> I'd think that one would want a *wal_keep_size* to cover the pending updates
> while the standby server might be unavailable, however long one might
> anticipate that would be.
It's
