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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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? |