| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Brian Wipf <brian(at)clickspace(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] WAL archiving idle database |
| Date: | 2007-10-26 23:28:06 |
| Message-ID: | 1193441286.7624.117.camel@dogma.ljc.laika.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 18:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > What's happening is that you have a checkpoint_timeout of 5 minutes, and
> > that checkpoint must write a checkpoint record in the WAL, prompting the
> > archiving.
>
> > If you want it to happen less frequently, it's often safe to have
> > checkpoint timeout set to something larger by a reasonable amount.
>
> I think you're confusing checkpoint_timeout and archive_timeout...
Thanks for clarifying it. The user-visible behavior, as I understand it,
is that the time between archiving on an idle database is:
MAX(archive_timeout,checkpoint_timeout)
[ of course, there's no guarantee that the archive_command succeeds in
that time ]
It looks like checkpoint_timeout was the limiting factor, in his case.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2007-10-26 23:39:36 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL archiving idle database |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-26 23:24:39 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL archiving idle database |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2007-10-26 23:31:54 | Re: PANIC caused by open_sync on Linux |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-26 23:24:39 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL archiving idle database |