Re: WAL segments (names) not in a sequence

> I didn't quite understand what you mean by that... But anyways so do you
> people think this sequence number overlap is "normal" ?

There is "no overlap" at all. The newer segments that you see are
"pre-allocated" ones. They have not been written to yet.

From the "ls -l pg_xlog" output that you  sent, it can be seen that
segments starting from 000000010000000E000000A8 through
00000001000000100000007E have been pre-allocated (at that point of
time) and 000000010000000E000000A7 is currently being written to. Just
look at the modified times in your "ls -l" listing.
000000010000000E000000A7 has May 22 15:32 (the latest writes seem to
have happened to this segment) whereas pre-allocated ones seem to have
around May 22 12:05 to 12:15 (which are yet to be written to).

Does that help?

--
Amit Langote