Re: [HACKERS] archive_timeout ignored directly after promotion

2017-06-21 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > One easy way to fix that would be to just wakeup the checkpointer from > the startup process once at the end of recovery, but it'd not be > pretty. I think it'd be better to change the > do_restartpoint = RecoveryInP

[HACKERS] archive_timeout ignored directly after promotion

2017-06-21 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, When promoting a standby without using the "fast promotion" logic, e.g. by using recovery targets (which doesn't use fast promotion for unbeknownst to me reasons), checkpointer doesn't necessarily respect archive timeout for the first cycle after promotion. The reason for that is that it dete

Re: [HACKERS] archive_timeout behavior for no activity

2010-02-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
Kevin Grittner wrote: > [resend, because of apparent failure to hit the list] > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I am dismayed that we are using a 16MB file for monitoring archive > > activity. Can't you use pg_current_xlog_location() and only check > > for an archive file when that location chan

Re: [HACKERS] archive_timeout behavior for no activity

2010-02-06 Thread Kevin Grittner
[resend, because of apparent failure to hit the list] Bruce Momjian wrote: > I am dismayed that we are using a 16MB file for monitoring archive > activity. Can't you use pg_current_xlog_location() and only check > for an archive file when that location changes? Hmmm Let me think about

Re: [HACKERS] archive_timeout behavior for no activity

2010-02-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
Kevin Grittner wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Looking at the archive_timeout documentation and > > CheckArchiveTimeout(), it appears we force a new xlog file and > > archive it even if no activity has been recorded in the xlog file. > > Is this correct? Should we document this or fix it so

Re: [HACKERS] archive_timeout behavior for no activity

2010-02-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
Fujii Masao wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Looking at the archive_timeout documentation and CheckArchiveTimeout(), > > it appears we force a new xlog file and archive it even if no activity > > has been recorded in the xlog file. ?Is this correct? > > No. Chec

Re: [HACKERS] archive_timeout behavior for no activity

2010-01-14 Thread Fujii Masao
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Looking at the archive_timeout documentation and CheckArchiveTimeout(), > it appears we force a new xlog file and archive it even if no activity > has been recorded in the xlog file.  Is this correct? No. CheckArchiveTimeout() doesn't switc

Re: [HACKERS] archive_timeout behavior for no activity

2010-01-14 Thread Kevin Grittner
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Looking at the archive_timeout documentation and > CheckArchiveTimeout(), it appears we force a new xlog file and > archive it even if no activity has been recorded in the xlog file. > Is this correct? Should we document this or fix it so only xlog > files with contents a

[HACKERS] archive_timeout behavior for no activity

2010-01-14 Thread Bruce Momjian
Looking at the archive_timeout documentation and CheckArchiveTimeout(), it appears we force a new xlog file and archive it even if no activity has been recorded in the xlog file. Is this correct? Should we document this or fix it so only xlog files with contents are archived? -- Bruce Momjian

Re: [HACKERS] archive_timeout?

2006-10-10 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Maybe I just don't understand checkpoint timeout? Could it reasonably be > set to something like 12 hours? I can't think why not, but the config > default is 5 minutes, so I would be hesitant to change it by that much. The only constraining factor on it is

Re: [HACKERS] archive_timeout?

2006-10-10 Thread Jeff Davis
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 13:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > There should be a documentation note to let people know that the archive > > will grow even when idle. Perhaps we should suggest compression in the > > docs so that people don't get worried about many gi

Re: [HACKERS] archive_timeout?

2006-10-10 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There should be a documentation note to let people know that the archive > will grow even when idle. Perhaps we should suggest compression in the > docs so that people don't get worried about many gigabytes of mostly- > empty files filling up their backup st

Re: [HACKERS] archive_timeout?

2006-10-10 Thread Jeff Davis
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 22:26 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > If archive_timeout is set to non 0, it seems an archive log segment is > created every time checkpoint occurs even there's no database > updation. This leads to creating 16MB log segment files every 5 > minutes (default checkpoint period), wh

Re: [HACKERS] archive_timeout?

2006-10-10 Thread Tom Lane
Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If archive_timeout is set to non 0, it seems an archive log segment is > created every time checkpoint occurs even there's no database > updation. This leads to creating 16MB log segment files every 5 > minutes (default checkpoint period), which will in tu

[HACKERS] archive_timeout?

2006-10-10 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
If archive_timeout is set to non 0, it seems an archive log segment is created every time checkpoint occurs even there's no database updation. This leads to creating 16MB log segment files every 5 minutes (default checkpoint period), which will in turn produce 4.6GB log segments with bogus data. Is

Re: [HACKERS] archive_timeout?

2006-10-10 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> If archive_timeout is set to non 0, it seems an archive log segment is > created every time checkpoint occurs even there's no database > updation. This leads to creating 16MB log segment files every 5 > minutes (default checkpoint period), which will in turn produce 4.6GB > log segments with bogu