From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gavan Schneider <pg-gts(at)snkmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Curiosity: what is PostgreSQL doing with data when "nothing" is happening? |
Date: | 2012-11-25 19:36:43 |
Message-ID: | 5520.1353872203@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Gavan Schneider <pg-gts(at)snkmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Saturday, November 24, 2012 at 04:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In the base configuration, an idle Postgres installation won't generate
>> any fresh WAL; but this isn't true if you've got hot-standby replication
>> configured, because of the effect described here:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-10/msg00207.php
>> ....
>> You might want to reconsider those settings: the combination
>> of hot standby and archive timeout seems a bit redundant to me. If
>> you're relying on a hot standby then you don't really need to worry
>> about keeping the WAL archive fully up-to-date, and contrarily if you
>> aren't using a hot standby then you should back off the wal_level
>> setting to eliminate unnecessary WAL traffic.
> But no hot standby...
Yeah, I took a second look and realized that you'd get this effect even
without hot_standby --- it's the alternation of checkpoint records and
forced segment switches from archive_timeout that creates the effect.
If you're concerned about minimizing WAL traffic at idle, you might want
to think about setting up a streaming replication arrangement instead of
relying on archive segment switches. archive_timeout is really kind
of a hack.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2012-11-25 22:16:47 | Re: Create collation fails |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-11-25 17:27:38 | Re: Curiosity: what is PostgreSQL doing with data when "nothing" is happening? |