| From: | "Murat YILDIZ" <myildiz(at)bellona(dot)com(dot)tr> | 
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Ynt: WAL and backup recovery | 
| Date: | 2001-05-24 11:45:54 | 
| Message-ID: | 9eis8v$ttv$1@news.tht.net | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin | 
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote in message
news:14951(dot)990634138(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us(dot)(dot)(dot)
> Dario Brignardello <dbrignar(at)sinectis(dot)com> writes:
> >       checkpoint_segments = 1
> > checkpoint_timeout = 30
>
> Reducing checkpoint_segments and checkpoint_timeout is actually
> seriously counterproductive, if your problem is amount of disk space
> chewed up by WAL logs during a long transaction (such as bulk load of
> a big table).  The WAL log cannot be truncated until the xact commits,
> so the checkpoints that happen meanwhile just cause log bloat.  Lots
> of it, because each checkpoint causes fresh copying of modified pages
> into the WAL log.
So let me know one thing, does checkpoint cause copying modified pages to
WAL log or does it just flush the modified pages to disk?
I thought WAL writings occur when pages being modified, deleted or inserted,
please correct me if I am wrong...thanx....
Murat
>
> Try increasing those numbers, not decreasing them.  Maybe 10/600 or so?
>
> Also, if you are short on disk space for WAL, increasing wal_files isn't
> such a great idea either.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vctor | 2001-05-25 08:49:04 | Very big problem | 
| Previous Message | Murat YILDIZ | 2001-05-24 06:57:36 | Ynt: simpler query still significantly slower |