Re: WAL segments pile up during standalone mode

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > I admit I have no idea why these guys seem to run into wraparound
> > problems so much.
>
> > On the other hand, I'm not sure that it would work to try to checkpoint
> > "during" vacuum, because the backend is in a transaction. Maybe it
> > would work to force a checkpoint after each command, and between tables
> > in a multi-table vacuum (which is presumably a common thing to do in a
> > standalone backend) or something like that?
>
> I really don't care for the idea of standalone mode doing *anything*
> the user didn't explicitly tell it to. In its role as a disaster
> recovery tool, that's just a recipe for shooting yourself in the foot.
>
> Perhaps this problem would be adequately addressed by documentation,
> ie suggest that when vacuuming very large tables in standalone mode,
> you should issue CHECKPOINT after each one.

I documented that there is no automatic background processing
(checkpoints) in single-user mode. I did not mention the idea of
running checkpoints manually. Applied patch attached.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +