| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joe Van Dyk <joe(at)tanga(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Replication failed after stalling |
| Date: | 2013-12-31 05:33:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAOR=d=2tbRe1=wnZrtXtX3AdFwLsV7Rc2++6yd=NcT-_mYe98w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 12:15 PM, Joe Van Dyk wrote:
>>
>> A possibly related question:
>>
>> I've set wal_keep_segments to 10,000 and also have archive_command
>> running wal-e. I'm seeing my wal files disappear from pg_xlog after 30
>> minutes. Is that expected? Is there a way around that?
>
>
> Well a WAL segment is 16MB in size so that should give you a basis for
> determining whether the above is appropriate, my guess it is not. I do not
> know enough about Wal-e, but my guess is it is siphoning off WAL segments
> before you want it to.
Don't some operations like forced checkpoints etc skip to the next WAL
resulting in them not necessarily being "full"?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Van Dyk | 2013-12-31 06:05:23 | Re: Replication failed after stalling |
| Previous Message | Sergey Konoplev | 2013-12-31 05:11:04 | Re: Replication failed after stalling |