Re: Size of Postgres Transaction Logs
От | Lincoln Yeoh |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Size of Postgres Transaction Logs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3.0.5.32.20010519112758.00fcc290@192.228.128.13 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Size of Postgres Transaction Logs (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Size of Postgres Transaction Logs
|
Список | pgsql-general |
At 12:45 PM 5/18/01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >The WAL log should be auto-truncated at checkpoints, assuming that the >old entries are no longer needed. However, if you leave uncommitted >transactions sitting around, their WAL entries can't be deleted until >you commit or abort them. I'd only expect massive WAL growth if you >have very long-running transactions ... Uhoh. Scenario 1: Using FCGI, persistent DB connections and Perl DBI. The problem I see is that the Perl DBI doesn't have a BEGIN transaction, can only rollback or commit, which implicitly begins a new transaction. So what happens typically is: 1) open DB connection. 2) wait for http request. 3) rollback (to implicitly begin a new transaction so that 'now' isn't years ago :) ). 4) do DB stuff 5) rollback/commit. Would we get massive WAL growth if the long running transactions are inactive (stuck at step 2) - not doing anything, but other transactions are active? Scenario 2: search/query engine - only selects are done, so db connection and transaction held open for long periods. Lots of selects being done. Any issues with this? Cheerio, Link.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: