From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | sql2pg <sekhar(dot)career(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WAL reducing size |
Date: | 2017-12-05 02:20:43 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQYxeWok4B1TVEdJ4W0eKyFXQXy_O37CuCEJXPoD70w9Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> sql2pg wrote:
>> how about uncommitted(open transactions) . if a segment has 1 committed and
>> 2 uncommitted transactions then will it keep the segment instead deleting it
>> after checkpoint , since it has 2 uncommitted transactions
>
> There is no connection between transaction commit and checkpoint
> removing WAL files. WAL files are removed after two checkpoints have
> occured, regardless of transactions that might be open. The on-disk
> effects of those transactions that occured before the earlier checkpoint
> are already on disk anyway. The commit record might appear at whatever
> point in the future, and the rows will not become visible to other
> transactions until then, regardless of what happened to the WAL
> segments.
Something that perhaps does not concern you directly, but in Postgres
11 WAL segments get recycled after one completed checkpoint thanks to
commit 4b0d28d.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-12-05 02:25:07 | Re: transaction wrap around |
Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2017-12-05 01:52:33 | Re: transaction wrap around |