| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: A doubt w.r.t WAL |
| Date: | 2003-07-22 04:13:48 |
| Message-ID: | 3124.1058847228@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> writes:
> Let's say I have only one wAL segment of 16MB and in a single transaction I
> put 20MB of data, say a text file dump inside a transaction.
AFAIR you cannot force the system to have only one WAL segment; it
*will* make another one when it has to.
Once it has established a checkpoint within the current WAL segment,
it is able to delete the previous segment, and will do so if you've
set the WAL parameters that small. I don't really recommend doing
so however. Creating and deleting WAL segments is expensive, and not
very productive compared to recycling them. The out-of-the-box
settings allow the system to recycle three or so WAL segments.
Unless you're truly desperate for disk space you should not reduce
the default WAL settings.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Abhishek Goyal | 2003-07-22 05:01:08 | Postgres Database Error Codes and Error Messages |
| Previous Message | Abhishek Goyal | 2003-07-22 03:42:58 | Postgres Database Error Codes |