Re: pg_xlog is getting bigger
От | Adrian Klaver |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_xlog is getting bigger |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 50D26135.4000107@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_xlog is getting bigger (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_xlog is getting bigger
Re: pg_xlog is getting bigger |
Список | pgsql-general |
On 12/19/2012 04:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@gmail.com> writes: >> Well the question is how long have those idle transactions been around? > > Idle transactions shouldn't have anything to do with pg_xlog bloat. > What causes xlog bloat is inability to release old WAL because either > (a) we're not able to complete checkpoints, or (b) WAL archiving is > enabled but malfunctioning, and the old WAL segments are being kept > pending successful archiving. Its obvious I am missing something important about WAL. Scenario: 1) Transaction is opened and say many UPDATEs are done. 2) This means there is now an old tuple and a new tuple for the previous row. 3) The transaction is not committed. I assumed the WAL logs contained information necessary to either go forward to the new on commit or go back to the old on rollback. I further assumed the log segment(s) could not be released until either a commit/rollback was done. At this point I figure I the above assumption is wrong or my understanding of <IDLE in TRANSACTION> is wrong or both! > > Either (a) or (b) should result in bleating in the postmaster log. > > regards, tom lane > > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@gmail.com
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: