From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: WAL size many times data size?
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:57:57 -0500
Message-ID: <4751.1478789877@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFwQ8re9wtt58HtB4hXkRAXbve7CJZRWP8jyzHskQUCzc6=Awg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFwQ8re9wtt58HtB4hXkRAXbve7CJZRWP8jyzHskQUCzc6=Awg@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-admin>
Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com> writes:
> Our streaming replication and WAL archiving keep having trouble because of
> the sheer size of the WAL files. The number of bytes in the WAL files seems
> to be a large multiplier, like 5x or 10x, the amount of data that we load.
My first instinct would be to check how often checkpoints are happening,
and increase the checkpoint control parameters so that they're at least
5 to 15 minutes apart. A short checkpoint interval leads directly to
WAL bloat because it means more full-page images get inserted into WAL.
(The first change of any given page after a checkpoint requires an FPI.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, cjames@emolecules.com
Subject: Re: WAL size many times data size?
In-Reply-To: <4751.1478789877@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox