Re: Another WAL question

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Nick Fankhauser
Тема Re: Another WAL question
Дата
Msg-id NEBBLAAHGLEEPCGOBHDGIEINDKAA.nickf@ontko.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Another WAL question  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-admin
> In 7.1.3 and 7.2, there are only 2-3 WAL files kept because there is no
> need to keep them after a checkpoint.

This answers my original question- it sounds like after 3, they get recycled
or deleted, so if I reserve 48Mb (3*16) for these, I should be OK. ...Right?


> Is there any need to have these
> WAL config paramaters anymore?

I'd say all of the parameters you list below still make sense, as they all
control *how* the 2-3 WAL files are used. WAL_FILES might as well be 0-3
instead of 0-64, but I can still see an advantage to creating these in
advance to allocate the space.


> We currently have in postgresql.conf:
>
> #wal_buffers = 8            # min 4
> #wal_files = 0 # range 0-64
> #wal_sync_method = fsync   # fsync or fdatasync or open_sync or
> open_datasync
> # Note: default wal_sync_method varies across platforms
> #wal_debug = 0             # range 0-16
> #commit_delay = 0          # range 0-100000
> #commit_siblings = 5       # range 1-1000
> #checkpoint_segments = 3   # in logfile segments (16MB each), min 1
> #checkpoint_timeout = 300  # in seconds, range 30-3600


Thanks for the good answers on this!

-Nick


В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Another WAL question
Следующее
От: Leandro Rodrigo Saad Cruz
Дата:
Сообщение: problems using pg_dump and datestyle format