Re: Startup process thrashing

From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, "Phillip Berry" <pberry(at)stellaconcepts(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Startup process thrashing
Date: 2008-12-11 17:09:06
Message-ID: dcc563d10812110909y68d06ab1q4091bc625a5c018f@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Phillip Berry wrote:
>>> I'm not running PITR and checkpoint_segments is set to 100 as this is
>>> home to a very write intensive app.
>
>> That's weird then. It shouldn't ever keep around more than 201 WAL
>> segments. I've heard one report of a similarly mysterious excess of them,
>> from Robert Treat, but that was probably caused by a hardware failure.
>
> AFAIK the only non-PITR reason for WAL files to not get recycled is if
> checkpoints were failing. Do you still have the postmaster log from
> before the original crash, and if so is there anything in there about
> checkpoint failures?

Don't forget that the OP mentioned earlier that he had very long help
open connections with possible long help open transactions.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2008-12-11 17:09:27 Re: Startup process thrashing
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-12-11 16:59:42 Re: Startup process thrashing