Re: little PITR annoyance

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: <ohp(at)pyrenet(dot)fr>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers list" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: little PITR annoyance
Date: 2007-06-07 22:10:06
Message-ID: 1181254207.26886.327.camel@silverbirch.site
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 17:01 +0200, ohp(at)pyrenet(dot)fr wrote:

> I've benn biten twice by this one:
> I enabled archiving on both my pgsql servers.
> the archive command was a simple gzip on an nfs mounted dir.
> Now the nfs server crashed.
> Both wal space filled up until postgresql shuts itself down because of no
> more space for WAL.
> That perfectly normal and expected.
>
> What I did'nt expect and don't understand is that postgresql refused to
> start up after the nfs server was up and running until I added some more
> space on the WAL fs although if it had started archiving ,
> space would have been there .
>
> I wonder if archiving could start before postgresql at least to make a
> little room for database engine to really start.

gzip write a new file and then deletes the old, doesn't it? So it must
require space on the xlog drive.

Does it still fail if you avoid using gzip and just use scp?

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Hammond 2007-06-07 22:31:41 Best Practice for running vacuums during off hours WAS Re: Autovacuum launcher doesn't notice death of postmaster immediately
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-06-07 22:09:36 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid losing track of data for shared tables in pgstats.