Re: [GENERAL] WAL segmentes names in wrong order?
On 11/3/16 1:16 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: so if I understand right, the ...DE file's previous name, was less than ...C6, then it was renamed in big advance for later use. I was missing this advance. That is correct. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] WAL segmentes names in wrong order?
Hi, so if I understand right, the ...DE file's previous name, was less than ...C6, then it was renamed in big advance for later use. I was missing this advance. Thanks! Pupillo 2016-11-03 11:45 GMT+01:00 hubert depesz lubaczewski : > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 11:28:57AM +0100, Tom DalPozzo wrote: > > What am I missing? > > David already explained, but you might want to read also: > https://www.depesz.com/2011/07/14/write-ahead-log- > understanding-postgresql-conf-checkpoint_segments- > checkpoint_timeout-checkpoint_warning/ > > depesz > > -- > The best thing about modern society is how easy it is to avoid contact > with it. > > http://depesz.com/ >
Re: [GENERAL] WAL segmentes names in wrong order?
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 11:28:57AM +0100, Tom DalPozzo wrote: > What am I missing? David already explained, but you might want to read also: https://www.depesz.com/2011/07/14/write-ahead-log-understanding-postgresql-conf-checkpoint_segments-checkpoint_timeout-checkpoint_warning/ depesz -- The best thing about modern society is how easy it is to avoid contact with it. http://depesz.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] WAL segmentes names in wrong order?
On 11/3/16 12:28 PM, Tom DalPozzo wrote: Hi, I found, in pg_xlog dir, several WAL segment files with old modification timestamp but with their names greater than more recent files. Ex.: 000100C6 modified today 000100DE modified yesterday This is completely normal. WAL files are recycled so a file with a later name can have an earlier timestamp. What this means is it is available but has not been used to record transactions yet. So, 000100C6 is the end of your current WAL stream. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] WAL segmentes names in wrong order?
Hi, I found, in pg_xlog dir, several WAL segment files with old modification timestamp but with their names greater than more recent files. Ex.: 000100C6 modified today 000100DE modified yesterday I thought it could not be possible. I'm doing some tests with archiving and base backups. Never performed a restore so far. Sometimes I restared the server due to changes in conf files. Never copied or manually handled files in pg_xlog dir. What am I missing? Regards Pupillo
