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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-admin by date

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