| From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Deleted WAL files held open by backends in Linux |
| Date: | 2009-11-26 03:20:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20091126122011.5BA3.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> I guess it is a stretch to imagine that a database would have
> enough read-only connections to exhaust resources by holding open
> one deleted WAL file each; unless they have, say, 200 such
> connections and they're cutting things so close that a wasted 3.2GB
> of disk space at the WAL file location will run them out.
AFAIK, we rename and reuse old WAL segment files.
So, we don't waste disk space unless checkpoint_segments are too small.
Also, if you are worried about disk space,
how about adding ftruncate(to 0 byte) before unlink() ?
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-11-26 04:01:33 | Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION |
| Previous Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2009-11-26 02:15:46 | Re: SE-PgSQL patch review |