From: | "Plugge, Joe R(dot)" <JRPlugge(at)west(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Chander Ganesan" <chander(at)otg-nc(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Jonny" <blubb(at)terminalschmiede(dot)de>, <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: turning of pg_xlog |
Date: | 2008-09-30 18:49:41 |
Message-ID: | 32CC45C5BDC57241B9BCEF37AC0C5DB5081DC839@OMAEXMB02.corp.westworlds.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
I might have to disagree here. I personally experienced a scenario
where I had 500 MB of file space defined for my WAL log files and then
attempted (not thinking it through thoroughly) to perform a COPY of a
very large (1.8 GB) dataset and kept adding WAL files until my file
system filled up and then the instance crashed.
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 1:45 PM
To: Chander Ganesan
Cc: Jonny; pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] turning of pg_xlog
Chander Ganesan <chander(at)otg-nc(dot)com> writes:
> You should also understand that if you set checkpoint_segments to a
> small number, its still possible that PostgreSQL might use more than
> that number for a large transaction.
"Large transactions" have nothing to do with this. You are confusing
Postgres' implementation with Oracle's.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chander Ganesan | 2008-09-30 18:55:19 | Re: turning of pg_xlog |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-30 18:44:38 | Re: turning of pg_xlog |