From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What does this tell me? |
Date: | 2002-10-09 05:22:26 |
Message-ID: | 17558.1034140946@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Actually, it's apparently a real problem, because the function never
> completes. Each cycle of "recycling transaction logs" takes longer
> and longer, and eventually locks up completely.
> What the function is doing is a succession of data cleanup procedures,
> updating the same table about 50 times. I will be very thankful for
> the day when I can commit within a procedure.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
The messages you show are perfectly normal operation, and prove nothing
much except that you pumped a lot of database updates through the
system. I think there's something wrong with your data transformation
application logic; or perhaps you are pumping so many updates through
your tables that you need some intermediate VACUUMs to get rid of
dead tuples. But messing with the WAL log parameters isn't going to
do a darn thing for you ... IMHO anyway.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-10-09 05:22:37 | Re: What does this tell me? |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-10-09 04:55:21 | Re: What does this tell me? |