Re: WAL file size vs. data file size

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WAL file size vs. data file size
Date: 2011-10-27 14:44:34
Message-ID: 28375.1319726674@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> writes:
> Today I tried to restore a 70GB database with the standard "pg_dump -h old_server <> | psql -h new_server <>" method. I had 100GB set aside for WAL files, which I figured surely would be enough, because all of the data, including indices, is only 70GB. So I was a bit surprised when the restore hung mis-way because my pg_xlogs directory ran out of space.

> Is it expected that WAL files are less dense than data files?

Yes, that's not particularly surprising ... but how come they weren't
getting recycled? Perhaps you had configured WAL archiving but it was
broken?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ben Chobot 2011-10-27 14:50:47 Re: WAL file size vs. data file size
Previous Message rihad 2011-10-27 14:27:30 Are pg_xlog/* fiels necessary for PITR?