Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > Looking at the archive_timeout documentation and CheckArchiveTimeout(),
> > it appears we force a new xlog file and archive it even if no activity
> > has been recorded in the xlog file. ?Is this correct?
> No. CheckArchiveTimeout() doesn't switch WAL files if there is no activity
> after the last switch. In fact, though it calls RequestXLogSwitch(),
> the switch is skipped in XLogInsert() because we are exactly at the start
> of a file in that case.
> But unfortunately checkpoint would be often recorded between each
> switches. So the archive_timeout appears to always force a new WAL file.
I have documented that increasing checkpoint_timeout can avoid WAL
writes on idle systems with archive_timeout.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-05 23:27:42|
|Subject: Re: Mammoth in Core?|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-05 23:18:51|
|Subject: Re: archive_timeout behavior for no activity|