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

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 02:35:55
Message-ID: 20110401023555.GE4116@tamriel.snowman.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
* Selva manickaraja (mavles78(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> Where you mentioned "after the reload" I suppose you meant restart right?

I'm not sure offhand if it requires a reload or a restart, that's why I
suggested doing a reload than then checking the logs to see if a restart
is required.

> About compressing you mentioned iirc, but how do I use it? are there any
> examples. I read about pg_compress before. Is that same?

No, I meant "use gzip".

> The configuration file shows that autovacuum=on and track_count=on to be
> commented out. That means that it is not running right? If that's the case,
> just uncommenting it now should get it working right?

Commented out means that the default value is used, which is on for both
of those.  That means that autovacuum should already be running.  Is
there some reason you think it isn't?

	Thanks,

		Stephen

In response to

Responses

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Selva manickarajaDate: 2011-04-01 03:25:10
Subject: Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction
Previous:From: Selva manickarajaDate: 2011-04-01 02:33:24
Subject: Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction

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