Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction
| От | Stephen Frost |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20110401013853.GC4116@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction (Selva manickaraja <mavles78@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction
|
| Список | pgsql-admin |
Selva,
* Selva manickaraja (mavles78@gmail.com) wrote:
> If our check_timeout is 30 minutes, what would be an acceptable time limit
> for archive_timeout?
They're two different things. Checkpoints are about getting data
flushed out to the data files (so they're not just in the WALs),
archive_timeout is about how often WAL segments should be forcibly
archived (so that the archive server doesn't end up missing data on
low-write systems).
Typically, I'd pick archive_timeout of around 5m or 10m, depending on
how much time you don't mind losing. I'd also compress the WALs (on a
low-write system, they're going to have very little data in them).
There's also a utility out there, iirc, which will truncate WALs to
remove empty space.
> Also since bulk loading/migration of large amount of data was done earlier,
> do I need to run vacuum etc.
Erm, you should be running autovacuum..
Stephen
Вложения
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: