Re: stale WAL files?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: stale WAL files?
Date: 2019-03-29 12:58:11
Message-ID: 20190329125811.GF1954@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 09:53:16AM -0600, Rob Sargent wrote:
> This is pg10 so it's pg_wal.  ls -ltr
>
>
> -rw-------. 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Mar 16 16:33
> 0000000100000CEA000000B1
> -rw-------. 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Mar 16 16:33
> 0000000100000CEA000000B2
>
>  ... 217 more on through to ...
>
> -rw-------. 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Mar 16 17:01
> 0000000100000CEA000000E8
> -rw-------. 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Mar 16 17:01
> 0000000100000CEA000000E9
> -rw-------. 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Mar 28 09:46
> 0000000100000CEA0000000E

In Postgres 10 and older versions, the server keeps WAL segment for
the last completed segment, and the previous completed segment. So
even if a checkpoint is issued, the current WAL insert point is never
really going to be on the first segment in pg_wal. Isn't that the
origin of what you think is a problem? So, say, if you issue a
checkpoint again, don't you see 0000000100000CEA000000B1 going away?

In Postgres 11, WAL segments worth only one checkpoint are kept
around.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rob Sargent 2019-03-29 13:25:56 Re: stale WAL files?
Previous Message Vadi 2019-03-29 11:19:45 Re: PostgreSQL equivalent of Oracle &quot;member of&quot;