Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] WAL archiving idle database

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Brian Wipf <brian(at)clickspace(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL archiving idle database
Date: 2007-10-26 23:28:06
Message-ID: 1193441286.7624.117.camel@dogma.ljc.laika.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 18:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > What's happening is that you have a checkpoint_timeout of 5 minutes, and
> > that checkpoint must write a checkpoint record in the WAL, prompting the
> > archiving.
> 
> > If you want it to happen less frequently, it's often safe to have
> > checkpoint timeout set to something larger by a reasonable amount. 
> 
> I think you're confusing checkpoint_timeout and archive_timeout...

Thanks for clarifying it. The user-visible behavior, as I understand it,
is that the time between archiving on an idle database is:
MAX(archive_timeout,checkpoint_timeout)

[ of course, there's no guarantee that the archive_command succeeds in
that time ]

It looks like checkpoint_timeout was the limiting factor, in his case.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2007-10-26 23:31:54
Subject: Re: PANIC caused by open_sync on Linux
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-26 23:24:39
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL archiving idle database

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2007-10-26 23:39:36
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL archiving idle database
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-10-26 23:24:39
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL archiving idle database

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group