| From: | Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, German Becker <german(dot)becker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL segments (names) not in a sequence |
| Date: | 2013-05-23 08:29:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAL_0b1sir2G2MnzqAWDeNLR0FbU+SthHTvF_XiAqXTXXj9QFtw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Okay, now I understand. Also, looking at his "ls -l pg_xlog", I could
> find that modified timestamps of all those pre-allocated segments are
> about similar (around 12:10), whereas the latest modified time (15:37)
> is of segment 000000010000000E000000A7.
>
> Wonder if whatever configuration he is using is sub-optimal that these
> many WAL segments can be re-cycled upon a checkpoint? Or is this okay?
Is archive_mode=on?
What is archive_command?
Is the server in the recovery mode?
--
Kind regards,
Sergey Konoplev
PostgreSQL Consultant and DBA
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/grayhemp
Phone: USA +1 (415) 867-9984, Russia +7 (901) 903-0499, +7 (988) 888-1979
Skype: gray-hemp
Jabber: gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2013-05-23 08:44:54 | Small typo in syncrep.h |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2013-05-23 08:25:58 | Re: WAL segments (names) not in a sequence |