Re: Performance of COPY for Archive operations

We already have a warning that prints when checkpoints happen too
frequently. I wonder if we should print a warning if the number of WAL
records doubles from its maximum which is checkpoint_segments*2+1 I
think.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simon Riggs wrote:
> >Tom Lane wrote
> > "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > > Nothing that surprising there, though I think I would like to
> > put a WARNING
> > > message into the Archiver that triggers if more than
> > CHECKPOINT_SEGMENTS WAL
> > > files are ready to archive at any one time. Though maybe that
> > would cause
> > > more problems than it would solve: "Archiving of transaction logs cannot
> > > keep up with system activity. If this occurs regularly, you should
> > > reconsider your database-disk layout"
> >
> > Can't see the value of this. The problem will be readily apparent from
> > growth of the pg_xlog directory --- anyone who doesn't notice that
> > probably isn't perusing the postmaster log either.
>
> Hmmm, message levels were a point we differed on previously, IIRC.
>
> Certainly, if the growth happened over a long period, then I'd agree - the
> admin should have spotted it.
>
> If the behaviour were more volatile, then the admin might not spot it - the
> effects are only shown when the system becomes I/O bound, which might be
> regularly at peak loading, but never long enough to notice. I had considered
> just such volatility in the design, though with regard to operator induced
> behaviour like tape changes or deliberate batching of log files.
>
> The issue is that by falling behind the archiver is increasing the
> transaction loss window, possibly undermining somewhat the purpose of PITR.
>
> The message shows in the log long after the situation occurred and the space
> increase has disipated. The admin may never look at the logs, agreed, but if
> the message isn't there they certainly will never notice. You and I will
> know, because when the crash occurs, we'll get a pattern of error messages
> we'll recognise, but thats not much help to the admin.
>
> Do we wait for such a crash before we add the hint?
>
> > Also, once it starts
> > to bleat, what's going to make it stop? Filling the disk with warning
> > messages won't be a constructive improvement on the situation :-(
>
> Filling the disk with log messages would be pointless, agreed.
>
> If the message appeared as part of the normal archiver cycle, then the
> message would only appear once per 2*CHECKPOINT_SEGMENTS "transaction log
> archived" and "transaction log recycled" messages. Thus no more likely to
> fill up the disk.
>
> Of course, the archiver could always report less frequently, since it keeps
> state between cycles.
>
> I'm not in a rush to add this, just think its needed, based upon my
> observations on Windows.
>
> Best Regards, Simon Riggs
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073