| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Naomi Walker <nwalker(at)eldocomp(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Recycled Log Files |
| Date: | 2004-02-06 20:52:03 |
| Message-ID: | 12208.1076100723@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Naomi Walker <nwalker(at)eldocomp(dot)com> writes:
> We are running Postgres 7.3.4 on Solaris 6 on an E3500. I noticed the
> following messages, and attempted to remedy the situation by upping our
> wal_buffers to 64, thinking we might need more room.
> 2004-02-05 16:48:16 LOG: recycled transaction log file 0000000600000029
> 2004-02-05 16:48:27 LOG: recycled transaction log file 000000060000002A
> 2004-02-05 16:48:27 LOG: recycled transaction log file 000000060000002B
This is normal operation. I'm not sure why we have it as LOG level and
not DEBUG-something. I suppose the messages are slightly useful to give
an idea of how fast you are using up log segments, but now that
wal_files isn't a separately tweakable parameter it's not obvious why
the average DBA would care.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-06 21:01:25 | Re: FATAL 2: (pg_clog ... no such file or directory) |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2004-02-06 20:40:48 | Re: Recycled Log Files |