From: | dstibrany(at)gmail(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Does my pg_xlog directory look right? |
Date: | 2016-05-22 21:40:18 |
Message-ID: | 87F21501-4653-4659-9740-4ECB1AB0709E@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Thanks for the response and the pg_xlogdump tip.
Dave
> On May 20, 2016, at 2:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Dave Stibrany <dstibrany(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> There are 98 WAL segments in the directory currently.
>
>> From the documentation, I understand that the number of WAL files can go as
>> high as (3 * checkpoint_segments + 1) segment files, which would be 97 in
>> my case, but I seem to be consistently at this number or even higher
>> (sometimes over 110 files) and I don't think I've ever seen the directory
>> smaller than ~97 segment files.
>
> I don't believe there's any aggressive attempt to remove segment files
> after transient peak usage (what happens to them instead is explained
> below). If you had many times the expected number of segments, I'd be
> worried, but these numbers sound pretty normal to me.
>
>> Regarding the ordering of segments, my understanding is that segment
>> 0000012000003720000008B would be written to after 00000012000003720000008A,
>> but the timestamps (14:59 and 15:06, respectively) appear to show
>> otherwise. There are several cases like this. Does this mean that
>> 00000012000003720000008A has newer WAL records than
>> 00000012000003720000008B??
>
> No, it probably means that neither one has been written at all yet.
> Typically, when a WAL segment is deemed no longer needed, the file isn't
> physically removed but is merely renamed into place as a future segment.
> The idea is to reduce unnecessary filesystem work as we create and delete
> WAL segments. You could check this out if you have pg_xlogdump at hand,
> by seeing whether the WAL file's first page header claims to belong to the
> segment indicated by the file name, or to some much-older segment.
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nguyen Hoai Nam | 2016-05-23 05:31:58 | The problem is related to concurrent resquests |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-05-20 18:41:26 | Re: Does my pg_xlog directory look right? |