Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Sergei Kornilov
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots
Date
Msg-id 337571513944260@web55j.yandex.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots
List pgsql-hackers
Hello
I think limit wal in replication slots is useful in some cases. But first time i was confused with proposed terminology
secured/insecured/broken/unknownstate.
 

patch -p1 gives some "Stripping trailing CRs from patch" messages for me, but applied to current HEAD and builds. After
littletesting i understood the difference in secured/insecured/broken terminology. Secured means garantee to keep wal,
insecure- wal may be deleted with next checkpoint, broken - wal already deleted.
 
I think, we may split "secure" to "streaming" and... hmm... "waiting"? "keeping"? - according active flag for clarify
andreadable "status" field.
 

regards, Sergei


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: After dropping the rule - Not able to insert / server crash (onetime ONLY)
Next
From: Maksim Milyutin
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] PoC: custom signal handler for extensions