From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom DalPozzo <t(dot)dalpozzo(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: checkpoint_timout with no WAL activity |
Date: | 2016-11-07 12:22:52 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSBtOS-XMv2A5ZxK741n3me=f2Of6jTRxfTjGSCKEcg8g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:14 PM, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Tom DalPozzo <t(dot)dalpozzo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I have:
>> checkpoint_timeout = 2min
>> wal_level = archive
>> archive_mode=on
>> archive_timeout = 30
>>
>> With NO dbase activity, I see the WAL being modified every 2min (and,
>> consequently, one WAL file archived every 2min too ).
>>
>> Is it right? I read: "If no WAL has been written since the previous
>> checkpoint, new checkpoints will be skipped even if checkpoint_timeout has
>> passed."
>
> I guess archive_timeout forcing to switch new WAL file, see this :
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-ARCHIVE-TIMEOUT
Out of curiosity, which version are you using? That's 9.6, no?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-11-07 12:26:45 | Re: checkpoint_timout with no WAL activity |
Previous Message | Tom DalPozzo | 2016-11-07 12:21:44 | Re: checkpoint_timout with no WAL activity |