Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: WAL file size vs. data file size

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WAL file size vs. data file size
Date: 2011-10-27 14:44:34
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> writes:
> Today I tried to restore a 70GB database with the standard "pg_dump -h old_server <> | psql -h new_server <>" method. I had 100GB set aside for WAL files, which I figured surely would be enough, because all of the data, including indices, is only 70GB. So I was a bit surprised when the restore hung mis-way because my pg_xlogs directory ran out of space. 

> Is it expected that WAL files are less dense than data files?

Yes, that's not particularly surprising ... but how come they weren't
getting recycled?  Perhaps you had configured WAL archiving but it was

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Ben ChobotDate: 2011-10-27 14:50:47
Subject: Re: WAL file size vs. data file size
Previous:From: rihadDate: 2011-10-27 14:27:30
Subject: Are pg_xlog/* fiels necessary for PITR?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group