From: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
To: Tory M Blue <tmblue@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres 8.2 memory weirdness
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:08:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0801251256540.4724@westnet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8a547c840801250936w59aad548w268f24a5fcc89ccf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8a547c840801231023q55796128nb2e88b8c8cfe86e@mail.gmail.com>
<Pine.GSO.4.64.0801231923420.12679@westnet.com>
<8a547c840801240946n37c7fad6ycf62187f82b2027c@mail.gmail.com>
<Pine.GSO.4.64.0801241335180.7217@westnet.com>
<8a547c840801250936w59aad548w268f24a5fcc89ccf@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Tory M Blue wrote:
> I doubled the checkpoint segments yesterday and have not seen any
> warnings. Will run with segments of 100 for a while and see how things
> look.. Anyway to make sure that there is not a number between 50 and
> 100 that makes more sense?
More segments means more disk space taken up with them and a longer crash
recovery. Those are the downsides; if you can live with those there's no
reason to run at <100 if that works for you. Fine-tuning here isn't
really that helpful.
I'm a little confused by your report through because you should still be
seeing regular checkpoint warnings if you set checkpoint_warning = 3600s ,
they should just be spaced further apart.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: gsmith@gregsmith.com, tmblue@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Postgres 8.2 memory weirdness
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0801251256540.4724@westnet.com>
* 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