Bohdan Linda wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > If you just want to ship segments to a standby server on a timely basis,
> > the setting to tune should be archive_timeout, no?
>
> just curious, how would the stand-by DB process the segments?
You mean this?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/pgstandby
Hello,
> If you just want to ship segments to a standby server on a timely basis,
> the setting to tune should be archive_timeout, no?
just curious, how would the stand-by DB process the segments?
Regards,
Bohdan
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make ch
Greg Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Rob Adams wrote:
>
>> Could someone please explain in layman's terms the implications of
>> using a checkpoint_timeout of ~1min as well? Is it a bad idea?
>
> Lowering checkpoint_timeout makes checkpoints more frequent, causing the
> database to go thro
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Rob Adams wrote:
Could someone please explain in layman's terms the implications of using a
checkpoint_timeout of ~1min as well? Is it a bad idea?
Lowering checkpoint_timeout makes checkpoints more frequent, causing the
database to go through WAL segments (at 16MB each)
I was referring to this post:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-10/msg01361.php
The test database was completely idle. WAL files were only being
archived at the interval specified in checkpoint_timeout (I was using
the default value) -- archive_timeout didn't make them happen a
Rob Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> archive_timeout only seems to work if it's >= checkpoint_timeout.
Hmm, no, they should be pretty independent. Define "seems to work"
please?
One possible connection is that an xlog file switch will not actually
happen unless some xlog output has been gener
