From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:53:43 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Subject: Re: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH 9/9] wal: trigger checkpoint if there are too many WALs Message-ID: <20181204125343.GB11160@chai> References: <20181203203417.GI2890@chai> <20181204112520.2di4acmhts24oj32@esperanza> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181204112520.2di4acmhts24oj32@esperanza> To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-ID: * Vladimir Davydov [18/12/04 15:38]: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:34:17PM +0300, Konstantin Osipov wrote: > > * Vladimir Davydov [18/11/28 19:16]: > > > > Please avoid using 0 for infinity: Tarantool doesn't use 0 to mean > > anything special. > > As a matter of fact, we do - setting checkpoint_interval/count to 0 > results in infinite checkpoint interval/count. Actually I could just as well say that it results in 0 checkpoints. 0 checkpoint interval for a non-zero value of checkpoint_count should be forbidden - it doesn't make any sense. > I want to make > checkpoint_wal_threshold consistent with those configuration options. > Anyway, if 0 doesn't mean infinity, what should one set > checkpoint_wal_threshold to to disable this feature? A very large value? > What value? 100 GB, 100 TB? Would look weird in box.cfg IMO. Yes, please set it to 2^64-1 -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia, +7 903 626 22 32 http://tarantool.io - www.twitter.com/kostja_osipov