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

Re: [Slony1-general] WAL partition overloaded--by autovacuum?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Richard Yen" <richyen(at)iparadigms(dot)com>, "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Slony1-general] WAL partition overloaded--by autovacuum?
Date: 2010-07-08 19:27:02
Message-ID: 323.1278617222@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> You're not alone.  At first I was assuming that it was because of
> archiving, but the OP says that's turned off.  Unless it had been on
> and there wasn't a *restart* after changing the configuration,

Yeah, I was less than convinced by his eyeball report of that, too.
"show archive_mode" would be a much more convincing check of the
server's state.  Or would have been, if the server hadn't been restarted
since the problem occurred.

archive_mode on with a bad archive_command would lead directly to the
reported problem ... although it should also lead to pretty obvious
complaints in the postmaster log.

(Hmm ... but those complaints are logged at level WARNING, which as
discussed elsewhere is really lower than LOG.  Should we change them?)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-07-08 19:28:08
Subject: Re: performance on new linux box
Previous:From: Richard YenDate: 2010-07-08 19:25:01
Subject: Re: [Slony1-general] WAL partition overloaded--by autovacuum?

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