Message-ID: <52122541702b838b870bbd239008625aacc042dd.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: VacuumDB generating huge WAL filed
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, SASIKUMAR Devaraj
	 <sashikumard@yahoo.com>
Cc: Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 07:35:47 +0100
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKFQuway7Ly58D_e8UBaDR4hCw9T-2yvWiJ3+EZNzbvXoRWjMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <155477463.1496353.1733983706261.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
	 <155477463.1496353.1733983706261@mail.yahoo.com>
	 <CAKFQuway7Ly58D_e8UBaDR4hCw9T-2yvWiJ3+EZNzbvXoRWjMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.54.2 (3.54.2-1.fc41) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52122541702b838b870bbd239008625aacc042dd.camel%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2024-12-11 at 23:25 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 11, 2024, SASIKUMAR Devaraj <sashikumard@yahoo.com=
> wrote:
> > When we are running vacuumdb for our database of 1.5TB it is generating=
 approximately 60GB
> > of WAL files? Any way we can reduce this WAL file generation?
>=20
> Set a much more aggressive autovacuum so you don=E2=80=99t accumulate as =
much dead tuples between runs?

You can also activate "wal_compression" for smaller full-page images
and increase "max_wal_size" to get fewer of them.

But 60GB of WAL shouldn't be a problem.  Why are they a problem for you?

Yours,
Laurenz Albe