From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | German Becker <german(dot)becker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WAL segments (names) not in a sequence |
Date: | 2013-05-24 18:24:17 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqHc+FmKFyhf3CNh4LMmCyj6zyn4SiVs7i=Pd+scsd3rQA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:08 AM, German Becker <german(dot)becker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks Amit, I understand now. Is there a way to know/predict how many
> prealocated segments will there be in a certain moment? What does it deppend
> on?
Upthread, Fujii Masao-san suggested what might have happened that
caused these pre-allocated segments to be created. To quote him:
"WAL recycling is performed by checkpoint. Checkpoint always checks
whether there are WAL files no longer required for crash recovery,
IOW, WAL files which were generated before the prior checkpoint
happened, and then if they are found, checkpoint tries to recycle
them."
Reading here would also help:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/wal-configuration.html
If you are still using the same values as during this observation,
could you provide values for these postgresql.conf parameters:
checkpoint_segments, checkpoint_timeout, wal_keep_segments?
--
Amit Langote
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dmitry Koterov | 2013-05-24 18:33:56 | Re: Incomplete description of pg_start_backup? |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2013-05-24 18:13:21 | Re: Parallel Sort |