Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:

> * 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.
>
I have put it in. Log file does not complaint, neither do I see the WAL(s)
reducing. So I'm waiting for Friday lunch time in 1 hour to restart the db.

>
> > 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".
>
OK, I saw a sample in the PostgreSQL site, I will try that on the
development machine first.

> > 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?
>
I see. Cause I was thinking that all these surge of WAL was due to the fact
that autovacuum was not running. Is there a utility to check if autovacuum
is running or not?

Once the db is restarted, I will post the results to you to let you know how
well the WAL(s) are fairing.

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk2VOgsACgkQrzgMPqB3kignEgCdFE+Ij+EbX+zC/rUtugZrG1nA
> sHoAoIZlmfjTlONs0fPA//Rz6g0HRoVn
> =D+LS
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>