Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B2B2E2EC7 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:08:58 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35365-08 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:08:43 -0400 (AST) Received: from westnet.com (westnet.com [216.187.52.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 531BE2E2EB9 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:08:53 -0400 (AST) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m0S08pEJ013871; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:08:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (gsmith@localhost) by westnet.com (8.14.0/8.13.2/Submit) with ESMTP id m0S08pQb013867; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:08:51 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: westnet.com: gsmith owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:08:51 -0500 (EST) From: Greg Smith X-X-Sender: gsmith@westnet.com To: Tory M Blue cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Postgres 8.2 memory weirdness In-Reply-To: <8a547c840801250936w59aad548w268f24a5fcc89ccf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <8a547c840801231023q55796128nb2e88b8c8cfe86e@mail.gmail.com> <8a547c840801240946n37c7fad6ycf62187f82b2027c@mail.gmail.com> <8a547c840801250936w59aad548w268f24a5fcc89ccf@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200801/252 X-Sequence-Number: 28491 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