Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  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