> I think these are the WAL files that were preallocated by WAL > recycling but have not > been used yet. > >> # WAL after wal_level changed from 'minimal' to 'hot_standby' >> >> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 May 21 12:27 000000010000000E0000007B >> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 May 21 12:35 000000010000000E0000007C >> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 276 May 21 12:35 >> 000000010000000E0000007C.00000020.backup >> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 May 21 14:53 000000010000000E0000007D >> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 May 21 14:53 000000010000000E0000007E >> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 May 21 14:53 000000010000000E0000007F >> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 May 21 14:53 000000010000000E00000080 > > These are the WAL files that you now used. So I don't think that WAL > file sequence rewound > in this case. >
Can pre-allocation go that further? for example, assuming 000000010000000E00000080 is currently being used, then is it possible that a segment named/numbered 00000001000000100000007E (which does exist in his pg_xlog as he reported in pgsql-admin thread) is pre-allocated already? I think we could ask the user the latest value of "select pg_xlogfile_name(pg_xlog_current_location())". -- Amit Langote -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
