From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "'Gavin Sherry'" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, <tswan(at)idigx(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Out of space situation and WAL log pre-allocation (was Tablespaces) |
Date: | 2004-03-02 22:53:09 |
Message-ID: | 004a01c400a9$225e3990$5baa87d9@LaptopDellXP |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > You're absolutely right about the not-knowing when you're out of
space
> > issue. However, if the xlog has been written then it is not
desirable,
> > but at least acceptable that the checkpoint/bgwriter cannot complete
on
> > an already committed txn. It's not the txn which is getting the
error,
> > that's all.
>
> Right. This is in fact not a fatal situation, as long as you don't
run
> out of preallocated WAL space.
...following on also from thoughts on [PERFORM] list...
Clearly running out of pre-allocated WAL space is likely to be the next
issue. Running out of space in the first place is likely to be because
of an intense workload, which is exactly the thing which also makes you
run out of pre-allocated WAL space. Does that make sense?
Best regards, Simon Riggs
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2004-03-02 23:25:07 | Re: Check Constraints and pg_dump |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2004-03-02 22:16:12 | Re: WAL Optimisation - configuration and usage |