Re: archive_timeout behaviour when archive_mode is off (was Re: [HACKERS] Too frequent checkpoints ?)

2013-02-15 Thread Fujii Masao
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > (changing subject) > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Pavan Deolasee >>> I also noticed that the WAL file switch >>> happens after archive_timeout seconds irrespective of whether >>>

archive_timeout behaviour when archive_mode is off (was Re: [HACKERS] Too frequent checkpoints ?)

2013-02-14 Thread Pavan Deolasee
(changing subject) On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Pavan Deolasee >> I also noticed that the WAL file switch >> happens after archive_timeout seconds irrespective of whether >> archive_mode is turned ON or not. This happens because we don't

Re: [HACKERS] Too frequent checkpoints ?

2013-02-14 Thread Fujii Masao
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > .> >> BTW, the cause of the problem is that the following sequences happens. >> >> 1. archive_timeout switches WAL file because checkpoint WAL record has >> has been written since la

Re: [HACKERS] Too frequent checkpoints ?

2013-02-11 Thread Pavan Deolasee
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: .> > BTW, the cause of the problem is that the following sequences happens. > > 1. archive_timeout switches WAL file because checkpoint WAL record has > has been written since last switch Thank you for explaining that. I also noticed that th

Re: [HACKERS] Too frequent checkpoints ?

2013-02-08 Thread Pavan Deolasee
> > >> Also, the log says "checkpoints are occurring too frequently (0 >> seconds apart)". But that looks wrong too. Checkpoints are really >> happening at 30 seconds apart and not 0 as the log message claims. > > I noticed that as well, and I think it might be a regression. I'll > run a bisec

Re: [HACKERS] Too frequent checkpoints ?

2013-02-08 Thread Jeff Janes
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > I was looking at the vacuum/visibility bug that Jeff Janes reported > and brought up the server with the data directory he has shared. With > his configuration, > > 3092 2013-02-08 02:30:31.327 PST:LOG: checkpoints are occurring too >

Re: [HACKERS] Too frequent checkpoints ?

2013-02-08 Thread Fujii Masao
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > I wonder if this is all expected. The database is getting ZERO > activity. There are no connections open at this time. The checkpoints > are happening at every 30 seconds and new WAL files are being created, > AFAIK because the old ones are g

Re: [HACKERS] Too frequent checkpoints ?

2013-02-08 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 02/08/2013 02:37 AM, Pavan Deolasee wrote: I wonder if this is all expected. The database is getting ZERO activity. There are no connections open at this time. The checkpoints are happening at every 30 seconds and new WAL files are being created, AFAIK because the old ones are getting archiv

[HACKERS] Too frequent checkpoints ?

2013-02-08 Thread Pavan Deolasee
I was looking at the vacuum/visibility bug that Jeff Janes reported and brought up the server with the data directory he has shared. With his configuration, # - Checkpoints - checkpoint_segments = 1 # in logfile segments, min 1, 16MB each checkpoint_timeout = 30s# range 30s-1h # - Ar