Re: WAL segments (names) not in a sequence
| От | Sergey Konoplev |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: WAL segments (names) not in a sequence |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAL_0b1sir2G2MnzqAWDeNLR0FbU+SthHTvF_XiAqXTXXj9QFtw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: WAL segments (names) not in a sequence (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: WAL segments (names) not in a sequence
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.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.ru@gmail.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: