From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Selva manickaraja <mavles78(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction |
Date: | 2011-04-01 01:38:53 |
Message-ID: | 20110401013853.GC4116@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Selva,
* Selva manickaraja (mavles78(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> If our check_timeout is 30 minutes, what would be an acceptable time limit
> for archive_timeout?
They're two different things. Checkpoints are about getting data
flushed out to the data files (so they're not just in the WALs),
archive_timeout is about how often WAL segments should be forcibly
archived (so that the archive server doesn't end up missing data on
low-write systems).
Typically, I'd pick archive_timeout of around 5m or 10m, depending on
how much time you don't mind losing. I'd also compress the WALs (on a
low-write system, they're going to have very little data in them).
There's also a utility out there, iirc, which will truncate WALs to
remove empty space.
> Also since bulk loading/migration of large amount of data was done earlier,
> do I need to run vacuum etc.
Erm, you should be running autovacuum..
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rajendra prasad | 2011-04-01 02:01:40 | Index size growing |
Previous Message | Selva manickaraja | 2011-04-01 01:31:22 | Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction |