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 spike of changes. Counting .ready > files makes more sense when you're trying to see if wal archiving is > failing. And now, using pg_stat_archiver is the way to go (thanks Gabriele > :) ).
Yeah, a situation where we can't give our users any kind of reasonable monitoring threshold at all sucks though. Also, it makes it kind of hard to allocate a wal partition if it could be 10X the minimum size, you know? What happened to the work Heikki was doing on making transaction log disk usage sane? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
