On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I'm writing a doc patch for 9.4 -> 9.0, I'll discuss below on this formula
> as this is the last one accepted by most of you.
>
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:39:26 -0800
> Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>> It looked to me that the for
Hi,
As I'm writing a doc patch for 9.4 -> 9.0, I'll discuss below on this formula
as this is the last one accepted by most of you.
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:39:26 -0800
Jeff Janes wrote:
> It looked to me that the formula, when descending from a previously
> stressed state, would be:
>
> greatest(
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:24:15 +0200
Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 11:15:13 -0500
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 01:21:53PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:20:22AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at
On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 11:15:13 -0500
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 01:21:53PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:20:22AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I looked into this, and cam
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 01:21:53PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:20:22AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> >
> > I looked into this, and came up with more questions. Why is
> > checkpoint_completion_targe
2014-12-30 18:45 GMT+01:00 Jeff Janes :
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Guillaume Lelarge <
> guilla...@lelarge.info> wrote:
>
>> Sorry for my very late answer. It's been a tough month.
>>
>> 2014-11-27 0:00 GMT+01:00 Bruce Momjian :
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:39:26PM -0800, Jeff Janes
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
wrote:
> Sorry for my very late answer. It's been a tough month.
>
> 2014-11-27 0:00 GMT+01:00 Bruce Momjian :
>
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:39:26PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> > It looked to me that the formula, when descending from a previou
Sorry for my very late answer. It's been a tough month.
2014-11-27 0:00 GMT+01:00 Bruce Momjian :
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:39:26PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > It looked to me that the formula, when descending from a previously
> stressed
> > state, would be:
> >
> > greatest(1 + checkpoint_c
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:39:26PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> It looked to me that the formula, when descending from a previously stressed
> state, would be:
>
> greatest(1 + checkpoint_completion_target) * checkpoint_segments,
> wal_keep_segments) + 1 +
> 2 * checkpoint_segments + 1
I don't th
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Guillaume Lelarge > wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As part of our monitoring work for our customers, we stumbled upon an
>> issue with our customers' servers who have a wal_keep_segments setting
>> higher than 0.
>>
>>
Hi,
Le 15 oct. 2014 22:25, "Guillaume Lelarge" a écrit
:
>
> 2014-10-15 22:11 GMT+02:00 Jeff Janes :
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Guillaume Lelarge <
guilla...@lelarge.info> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As part of our monitoring work for our customers, we stumbled upon an
issue with our c
On 10/15/2014 02:17 PM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> > If we don't count the WAL files, though, that eliminates the best way to
>> > detecting when archiving is failing.
>> >
>> >
> WAL files don't give you this directly. You may think it's an issue to get
> a lot of WAL files, but it can just be a
2014-10-15 23:12 GMT+02:00 Josh Berkus :
> On 10/15/2014 01:25 PM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > Monitoring is another matter, and I don't really think a monitoring
> > solution should count the WAL files. What actually really matters is the
> > database availability, and that is covered with havin
On 10/15/2014 01:25 PM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Monitoring is another matter, and I don't really think a monitoring
> solution should count the WAL files. What actually really matters is the
> database availability, and that is covered with having enough disk space in
> the WALs partition.
If w
2014-10-15 22:11 GMT+02:00 Jeff Janes :
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Guillaume Lelarge > wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As part of our monitoring work for our customers, we stumbled upon an
>> issue with our customers' servers who have a wal_keep_segments setting
>> higher than 0.
>>
>> We have a mo
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As part of our monitoring work for our customers, we stumbled upon an
> issue with our customers' servers who have a wal_keep_segments setting
> higher than 0.
>
> We have a monitoring script that checks the number of WAL files i
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As part of our monitoring work for our customers, we stumbled upon an issue
> with our customers' servers who have a wal_keep_segments setting higher than
> 0.
>
> We have a monitoring script that checks the number of WAL files in
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:20:22AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>
> I looked into this, and came up with more questions. Why is
> checkpoint_completion_target involved in the total number of WAL
> segments? If checkpoint_comple
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I looked into this, and came up with more questions. Why is
> checkpoint_completion_target involved in the total number of WAL
> segments? If checkpoint_completion_target is 0.5 (the default), the
> calculation is:
>
> (2 + 0.5)
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 07:12:33AM +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Le 8 août 2014 09:08, "Guillaume Lelarge" a écrit :
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As part of our monitoring work for our customers, we stumbled upon an issue
> with our customers' servers who have a wal_keep_segments setting higher than
>
Le 8 août 2014 09:08, "Guillaume Lelarge" a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> As part of our monitoring work for our customers, we stumbled upon an
issue with our customers' servers who have a wal_keep_segments setting
higher than 0.
>
> We have a monitoring script that checks the number of WAL files in the
pg_
Hi,
As part of our monitoring work for our customers, we stumbled upon an issue
with our customers' servers who have a wal_keep_segments setting higher
than 0.
We have a monitoring script that checks the number of WAL files in the
pg_xlog directory, according to the setting of three parameters
(c
22 matches
Mail list logo
