On Friday 12 December 2008 03:59:42 Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith 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
"Scott Marlowe" writes:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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
>>
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't forget that the OP mentioned earlier that he had very long help
> open connections with possible long help open transactions.
Long held. held. not help.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@pos
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 sh
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 rep
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe we could rephrase it as "whole-database VACUUM"?
> "database-wide VACUUM"?
Yeah, that's probably better, because I think we use that phrase in
the documentation already.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via
Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Not exactly. What it said was "To avoid a database shutdown, execute a
> > full-database VACUUM". In that context, "full" means you vacuum
> > everything in the database, but only regular VACUUM is needed. VACUUM
> > FULL, as you le
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not exactly. What it said was "To avoid a database shutdown, execute a
> full-database VACUUM". In that context, "full" means you vacuum
> everything in the database, but only regular VACUUM is needed. VACUUM
> FULL, as you learned the hard way, is a m
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,
f
Hi Greg,
I appreciate the reply. Fortunately within the last 10 minutes it has finished
the recovery...and
then promptly shut itself down again.
The exact error is in fact:
FATAL: database is not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss in
database "aim"
2008-12-10 06:00:02 CST [213
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Phillip Berry wrote:
I've got a bit of a problem. It started last night when postgres
(8.1.9) went down citing the need for a vacuum full to be done due to
the transaction log needing to wraparound.
Not exactly. What it said was "To avoid a database shutdown, execute a
Hello Everyone,
I've got a bit of a problem. It started last night when postgres (8.1.9) went
down citing the need
for a vacuum full to be done due to the transaction log needing to wraparound.
So I stopped the server, logged in using a standalone backend and started a
vacuum full analyze on
12 matches
Mail list logo
