Re: WAL segments (names) not in a sequence
От | Amit Langote |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WAL segments (names) not in a sequence |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+HiwqHc+FmKFyhf3CNh4LMmCyj6zyn4SiVs7i=Pd+scsd3rQA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WAL segments (names) not in a sequence (German Becker <german.becker@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: WAL segments (names) not in a sequence
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 3:08 AM, German Becker <german.becker@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Amit, I understand now. Is there a way to know/predict how many > prealocated segments will there be in a certain moment? What does it deppend > on? Upthread, Fujii Masao-san suggested what might have happened that caused these pre-allocated segments to be created. To quote him: "WAL recycling is performed by checkpoint. Checkpoint always checks whether there are WAL files no longer required for crash recovery, IOW, WAL files which were generated before the prior checkpoint happened, and then if they are found, checkpoint tries to recycle them." Reading here would also help: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/wal-configuration.html If you are still using the same values as during this observation, could you provide values for these postgresql.conf parameters: checkpoint_segments, checkpoint_timeout, wal_keep_segments? -- Amit Langote
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: