| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Monnerie <michael(dot)monnerie(at)it-management(dot)at> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: online tape backup |
| Date: | 2007-02-13 15:34:39 |
| Message-ID: | 29978.1171380879@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Michael Monnerie <michael(dot)monnerie(at)it-management(dot)at> writes:
> From what I understand, if I run a vacuum, the WAL logs will be
> enormous, as they do not simply store the vacuum command itself, but
> every single operation done on the db.
> If that's true, running vacuum before the base backup could be better,
> as there are less WAL logs to store, making the backup smaller, right?
You're suffering from a fundamental misconception about the nature of WAL.
Vacuum doesn't "shrink WAL", and neither does anything else; WAL is a
history of every action ever taken in the database, and so a vacuum will
just add a bunch more to that history.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2007-02-13 16:08:24 | Re: Is it normal for Autovacuum running continuously? |
| Previous Message | Michael Goldner | 2007-02-13 15:34:32 | Is it normal for Autovacuum running continuously? |