On Oct 27, 2011, at 8:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> writes:
>> Today I tried to restore a 70GB database with the standard "pg_dump -h old_server <∑> | psql -h new_server <∑>" method. I had 100GB set aside for WAL files, which I figured surely would be enough, because all of the data, including indices, is only 70GB. So I was a bit surprised when the restore hung mis-way because my pg_xlogs directory ran out of space.
>> Is it expected that WAL files are less dense than data files?
> Yes, that's not particularly surprising ... but how come they weren't
> getting recycled? Perhaps you had configured WAL archiving but it was
It's because I'm archiving wal files into Amazon's S3, which is slooooooooooow. PG is recycling as fast as it can, but when a few MB of COPY rows seem to ballon up to a few hundred MB of WAL files, it has a lot to archive before it can recycle. It'll be fine for steady state but it looks like it's just going to be a waste for this initial load.
What's the expected density ratio? I was always under the impression it would be about 1:1 when doing things like COPY, and have never seen anything to the contrary.
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Gauthier, Dave||Date: 2011-10-27 16:18:01|
|Subject: matching against a list of regexp? |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-10-27 14:44:34|
|Subject: Re: WAL file size vs. data file size |