On 10/15/2014 02:17 PM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> > If we don't count the WAL files, though, that eliminates the best way to
>> > detecting when archiving is failing.
>> >
>> >
> WAL files don't give you this directly. You may think it's an issue to get
> a lot of WAL files, but it can just be a spike of changes. Counting .ready
> files makes more sense when you're trying to see if wal archiving is
> failing. And now, using pg_stat_archiver is the way to go (thanks Gabriele
> :) ).
Yeah, a situation where we can't give our users any kind of reasonable
monitoring threshold at all sucks though. Also, it makes it kind of
hard to allocate a wal partition if it could be 10X the minimum size,
you know?
What happened to the work Heikki was doing on making transaction log
disk usage sane?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com