On Oct 27, 2011, at 8:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Ben Chobot <be...@silentmedia.com> writes: >> Today I tried to restore a 70GB database with the standard "pg_dump -h >> old_server <∑> | psql -h new_server <∑>" method. I had 100GB set aside for >> WAL files, which I figured surely would be enough, because all of the data, >> including indices, is only 70GB. So I was a bit surprised when the restore >> hung mis-way because my pg_xlogs directory ran out of space. > >> Is it expected that WAL files are less dense than data files? > > Yes, that's not particularly surprising ... but how come they weren't > getting recycled? Perhaps you had configured WAL archiving but it was > broken?
It's because I'm archiving wal files into Amazon's S3, which is slooooooooooow. PG is recycling as fast as it can, but when a few MB of COPY rows seem to ballon up to a few hundred MB of WAL files, it has a lot to archive before it can recycle. It'll be fine for steady state but it looks like it's just going to be a waste for this initial load. What's the expected density ratio? I was always under the impression it would be about 1:1 when doing things like COPY, and have never seen anything to the contrary. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
