Re: [GENERAL] No control over max.num. WAL files

2011-05-25 Thread Rafael Martinez
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/25/2011 02:47 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 01:37:47PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> That's the way SQLServer and Oracle work, but not PostgreSQL. We can >> clear down WAL files even during a long running transaction. >>

Re: [GENERAL] No control over max.num. WAL files

2011-05-25 Thread Rafael Martinez
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/25/2011 02:55 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> These are the relevant parameters we have changed in postgresql.conf: >> >> archive_mode | off >> checkpoint_segments | 128 >> default_statistics_target | 100 >> maintenance_work

Re: [GENERAL] No control over max.num. WAL files

2011-05-25 Thread Craig Ringer
These are the relevant parameters we have changed in postgresql.conf: archive_mode | off checkpoint_segments | 128 default_statistics_target | 100 maintenance_work_mem | 512MB max_fsm_pages | 80 max_fsm_relations | 8000 shared_buffers

Re: [GENERAL] No control over max.num. WAL files

2011-05-25 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 01:37:47PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> That's the way SQLServer and Oracle work, but not PostgreSQL. We can >> clear down WAL files even during a long running transaction. >> >> For us, "unneeded" means prior to

Re: [GENERAL] No control over max.num. WAL files

2011-05-25 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 01:37:47PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > That's the way SQLServer and Oracle work, but not PostgreSQL. We can > clear down WAL files even during a long running transaction. > > For us, "unneeded" means prior to the second-to-last checkpoint record. Well, they're obviously

Re: [GENERAL] No control over max.num. WAL files

2011-05-25 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > >> Note that "unneeded".  Obviously, you need more than that, probably >> because you're restoring the database in one transaction (so none of >> the files can be flushed). > > That's t

Re: [GENERAL] No control over max.num. WAL files

2011-05-25 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Note that "unneeded".  Obviously, you need more than that, probably > because you're restoring the database in one transaction (so none of > the files can be flushed). That's the way SQLServer and Oracle work, but not PostgreSQL. We can c

Re: [GENERAL] No control over max.num. WAL files

2011-05-25 Thread Rafael Martinez
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/25/2011 02:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 01:30:35PM +0200, Rafael Martinez wrote: Thanks for your answer. >> >> According to the documentation [1] we can expect a maximum of >> (3 * checkpoint_segments + 1 segment file

Re: [GENERAL] No control over max.num. WAL files

2011-05-25 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 01:30:35PM +0200, Rafael Martinez wrote: > I am using 'pg_dumpall | psql' in the process and everything works ok > until our pg_xlog partition gets full. > > According to the documentation [1] we can expect a maximum of > (3 * checkpoint_segments + 1 segment files) WAL file