From: | "Lane Van Ingen" <lvaningen(at)esncc(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | WAL-related Problem? |
Date: | 2006-04-28 15:27:31 |
Message-ID: | EKEMKEFLOMKDDLIALABIIEDMCKAA.lvaningen@esncc.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
I am running PostgreSQL version 8.0.3 on Windows 2003.
We have an application where it was not our intention to run WAL, since a
little data loss is not critical to us. Nevertheless, we want to capture as
many updates as possible.
I thought WAL was turned off because no parameters are set (see below), but
I evidently was wrong; this morning I had what appears to be a WAL error,
during a period of heavy transaction activity:
LOG: could not rename "<dir>/pg_xlog/<log number" to "<next log number>"
continuing to try
Looks like, in the absence of specific parameters, default WAL values are
used; at the moment there are 10 files in pg_xlog directory. Of the 10 files
listed, it is trying to rename (probably re-use) the first of the 10, so it
will be the 11th in a 10-entry list.
There is no activity at all at the moment, presumably because database is
still trying to rename this log file, so everything is stopped.
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# WRITE AHEAD LOG
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# - Settings -
#fsync = true # turns forced synchronization on or off
#wal_sync_method = fsync # the default varies across platforms:
# fsync, fdatasync, open_sync, or open_datasync
#wal_buffers = 8 # min 4, 8KB each
#commit_delay = 0 # range 0-100000, in microseconds
#commit_siblings = 5 # range 1-1000
# - Checkpoints -
#checkpoint_segments = 3 # in logfile segments, min 1, 16MB each
#checkpoint_timeout = 300 # range 30-3600, in seconds
#checkpoint_warning = 30 # 0 is off, in seconds
# - Archiving -
#archive_command = '' # command to use to archive a logfile segment
QUESTIONS:
(1) What do I do to get this database running again?
(2) My current understanding is that turn WAL off, it is done my setting
fsync to 'false'. but assume I must take database down to do this.
Can anyone help?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lane Van Ingen | 2006-04-28 16:59:27 | Re: WAL-related Problem? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-28 01:49:41 | Re: 8.1 (win32): partial index not used? |