From: | hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why so many xlogs? |
Date: | 2010-11-01 19:54:49 |
Message-ID: | 20101101195449.GA25239@depesz.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 08:31:10PM +0100, Cédric Villemain wrote:
> It should stick at a maximum of 3 * checkpoint_segments + 1, if it
> exceed it will remove the extra files after.
if you'd look at the graph you'd notice that it never goes down to 2n+1.
And really - so far I have not yet heard/seen/read any solid reasoning
for 3n instead of 2n.
> > also - can you explain why "fraction of total time" (time!) would
> > directly relate to number of xlog files existing in pg_xlog? I mean -
> > you're not the first person to suggest it, but I don't see any way that
> > these two could be related.
> It's guess that while your checkpoint is longer by this factor(X%),
> the number of wal files needed might be multiplied by the same ratio.
> (1+X%) To handle extra files created while the checklpoint is still
> running.
I'm not sure I understand. Will need to run some tests. Yet - even
assuming (2 + checkpoint_completion_target ) * n - it doesn't explain
why there was no difference in number of segments after decreasing from
0.9 to 0.5.
Best regards,
depesz
--
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/depesz / blog: http://www.depesz.com/
jid/gtalk: depesz(at)depesz(dot)com / aim:depeszhdl / skype:depesz_hdl / gg:6749007
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2010-11-01 20:01:59 | Re: Replication |
Previous Message | Jonathan Tripathy | 2010-11-01 19:53:40 | Replication |