Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 315F837BA4C for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:55:40 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11868-09 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:55:33 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtp202.iad.emailsrvr.com (smtp202.iad.emailsrvr.com [207.97.245.202]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB3737B9B4 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:55:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from relay10.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay10.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 95D4C1BFEDC; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:55:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by relay10.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: chander-AT-otg-nc.com) with ESMTP id 6F32C1BFF06; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:55:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <48E27617.7020005@otg-nc.com> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:55:19 -0400 From: Chander Ganesan User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane CC: Jonny , pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: turning of pg_xlog References: <48E0B559.3070406@terminalschmiede.de> <48E26C60.3060307@otg-nc.com> <23386.1222800278@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <23386.1222800278@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200809/356 X-Sequence-Number: 30449 Tom Lane wrote: > Chander Ganesan writes: > >> You should also understand that if you set checkpoint_segments to a >> small number, its still possible that PostgreSQL might use more than >> that number for a large transaction. >> > > "Large transactions" have nothing to do with this. You are confusing > Postgres' implementation with Oracle's. > > regards, tom lane Okay. I guess my use of the word "transaction" here was erroneous - probably comes from my oracle background :-( . However, the fact remains that its possible to exceed checkpoint_segments in certain scenarios (I think the docs refer to it as a peak in log creation or something like that), which - if it fills up the disk that the WALs are on, can result in issues... And one should be wary of that when trying to limit the number of WALs in order to meet limited disk space requirements. -- Chander Ganesan Open Technology Group, Inc. One Copley Parkway, Suite 210 Morrisville, NC 27560 919-463-0999/877-258-8987 http://www.otg-nc.com