Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server

From: Eduardo Piombino <drakorg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server
Date: 2010-01-13 15:53:59
Message-ID: e24c1d9d1001130753g3a184d72jfed374ae63349a4@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

With that said, I assume my current version of pgsql DOES make all this
heavy work go through WAL logging.

Curious thing is that I remember (of course) reviewing logs of the crash
times, and I didn't see anything strange, not even the famous warning "you
are making checkpoints too often. maybe you should consider using extending
the checkpoint_segments parameter".

I will check it again.
Besides, I will try to gather as much information on the system itself (RAID
controllers, disk vendors, etc).
Thank you, will keep you posted.

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <
euler(at)timbira(dot)com> wrote:

> Eduardo Piombino escreveu:
> > Maybe it does not get logged at all until the ALTER is completed?
> >
> This feature [1] was implemented a few months ago and it will be available
> only in the next PostgreSQL version (8.5).
>
> [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2009-11/msg00018.php
>
>
> --
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira
> http://www.timbira.com/
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-01-13 16:11:21 Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-01-13 15:42:38 Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue