Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <josh@agliodbs.com>) id 1T2O2w-0001qB-6c
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:01:10 +0000
Received: from smtp.01.com ([199.36.142.181])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <josh@agliodbs.com>) id 1T2O2q-0005lO-75
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:01:09 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by smtp-out-1.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FDEB2942A7;
	Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:01:02 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-1.01.com
Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (smtp-out-1.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id WiOPbELtLShT; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:01:01 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from smtp.01.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by smtp-out-1.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C522B2942BA;
	Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:01:01 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-1.01.com (mail.01.com [172.18.30.178])
	by smtp-out-1.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABCBD2942A7;
	Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:01:01 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:01:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: delongboy <sdelong@saucontech.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Message-ID: <801082735.54549.1345215661255.JavaMail.root@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <1345134711660-5720136.post@n5.nabble.com>
Subject: Re: Increasing WAL usage followed by sudden drop
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [70.36.139.198]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.0_GA_2669 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Linux)/7.2.0_GA_2669)
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Archive-Number: 201208/119
X-Sequence-Number: 47657


> We are not doing anything to postgres that would cause the rise and
> drop.
> Data base activity is pretty consistent.  nor are we doing any kind
> of
> purge.  This week the drop occurred after 6 days.  We are thinking it
> must
> be some kind of internal postgres activity but we can't track it
> down.

Well, we certainly can't figure it out on this list by blind guessing ...