Re: checkpoint_segments 32 megs?
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: checkpoint_segments 32 megs? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1121294026.3970.370.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: checkpoint_segments 32 megs? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: checkpoint_segments 32 megs?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 17:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not certain how important that really is; it was part of > Vadim's original design for WAL and no one ever particularly > questioned it. Anybody setting checkpoint_segments high is likely to have a dedicated WAL disk anyway, which easily gives you space for 1000s of WAL segment files, given current disk sizes. So saving space shouldn't be a reason to want to remove that. It seems practical sense to have more than one checkpoint available. The whole purpose of WAL is robustness and recoverability. All DBAs (should) keep both their last backup and the one before that (at least), with many sites specifying an automatic retention history of 7 or more. That same philosophy should work with the WAL files also. So, overall, I see no reason to change that feature. Best Regards, Simon Riggs
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: