| From: | Richard Yen <richyen(at)iparadigms(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [Slony1-general] WAL partition overloaded--by autovacuum? |
| Date: | 2010-07-08 20:06:27 |
| Message-ID: | 86CD8EFF-DDE6-45F7-8B2D-364F6334DB91@iparadigms.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Richard Yen <richyen(at)iparadigms(dot)com> writes:
>> My concern is that--as in the original post--there were moments where 129 WAL files were generated in one minute. Is it plausible that this autovacuum could be responsible for this?
>
> That's not a particularly surprising WAL creation rate for a busy
> database. I wouldn't expect autovacuum to cause it by itself, but
> that's true only because autovacuum processing is typically throttled
> by autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay. Perhaps you had that set to zero?
>
Ah, yes, autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 0 in my config. That explains it--guess I'm playing with knives if I set things that way...
--Richard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Yen | 2010-07-08 20:06:34 | Re: [Slony1-general] WAL partition overloaded--by autovacuum? |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-07-08 19:59:24 | Re: performance on new linux box |