Hi,
Just to be curious, why is wal_writer_delay limited to 10s?
I am using postgresql in an embedded environment where every 10s
sensor values are logged and even with "synchronous_commit = off" and
wal_writer_delay=1 this burns quite a lot of nand cycles. For me
it wouldn't hurt loosing minut
On 28/12/13 02:01, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Hi,
Just to be curious, why is wal_writer_delay limited to 10s?
I am using postgresql in an embedded environment where every 10s
sensor values are logged and even with "synchronous_commit = off" and
wal_writer_delay=1 this burns quite a lot of nand
Hi,
Unfortunately the question is still open - is there any technical
reason why wal_writer_delay is limited to 10s?
I am using postgresql in an embedded system and writing every 10s
burns flash at an amazing rate (a 32GB SDHC card survived 4 days with
only a few GB written).
Thank you in advance
Hi,
Is there any technical reason why wal_writer_delay is limited to 10s?
I am using postgresql in an embedded system and writing every 10s
burns flash at an amazing rate (a 32GB SDHC card with ext4 survived 4 days with
only a few GB written).
I've now switched to nilfs2 which is way more friendl
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> Something like wal_writer_delay=600s would be ideal, I can afford to
> loose a 10min of data, but can't afford to get a corrupted database
> after power loss.
What Postgres version? The WAL Writer will hibernate on Postgres 9.2+.
walwriter
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Peter Geoghegan
wrote:
> What Postgres version? The WAL Writer will hibernate on Postgres 9.2+.
Of course, it will still write things out at a steady rate if they're
there to write. However, there is no reason to think you couldn't
change things in guc.c to have th
Hi Peter,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
> What Postgres version? The WAL Writer will hibernate on Postgres 9.2+.
> walwriter.c says:
I am using Postgresql-9.1 shipped with Raspbian (debian for raspberry pi).
> /*
> * Number of do-nothing loops before lengthening the delay time, and the
> * mul
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> My question on the list was merely to make sure there are no
> side-effects when increasing this delay above what seems to be
> considered safe limits. However, I still wonder why this parameter is
> capped to 10s and whether this restrict
