| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: No control over max.num. WAL files |
| Date: | 2011-05-25 12:44:34 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=1zfS50n8KP7WU_9SeDpRGiXUUxg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> wrote:
>
>> Note that "unneeded". Obviously, you need more than that, probably
>> because you're restoring the database in one transaction (so none of
>> the files can be flushed).
>
> That's the way SQLServer and Oracle work, but not PostgreSQL. We can
> clear down WAL files even during a long running transaction.
>
> For us, "unneeded" means prior to the second-to-last checkpoint record.
I wonder if OP is outrunning his checkpoint writing?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2011-05-25 12:47:34 | Re: No control over max.num. WAL files |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-05-25 12:37:47 | Re: No control over max.num. WAL files |