On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 14:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > One minor thing: I think it's still dependent on locale though, because
> > the output of pg_controldata is locale-dependent, right? It would work
> > fine for me, but it would be nice if there was somet
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One minor thing: I think it's still dependent on locale though, because
> the output of pg_controldata is locale-dependent, right? It would work
> fine for me, but it would be nice if there was something that could be
> released that anyone could use, includ
>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 11:50 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Also, did you publish your pg_clearxlogtail program anywhere? I think
> that would be helpful to many people, but I don't see it on pgfoundry.
So far I've just included with the email o
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 09:56 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Here's our script:
Thanks, I think that is better than what I'm doing.
One minor thing: I think it's still dependent on locale though, because
the output of pg_controldata is locale-dependent, right? It would work
fine for me, but it woul
>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 6:28 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> [ of course, there's no guarantee that the archive_command succeeds in
> that time ]
Which is one of the things we would want to cause an alert.
-Kevin
-
>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 6:39 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 18:06 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Hmmm... We would actually prefer to get the WAL file at the
>> specified interval. We have software to ensure that the warm
>>
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would think if the current location does not end in all zeros, you
> should expect a new WAL segment to be archived soon. Although this
> assumes that an idle database would not advance that location at all,
> and I'm still trying to understand Tom's propo
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 18:06 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Hmmm... We would actually prefer to get the WAL file at the
> specified interval. We have software to ensure that the warm
> standby instances are not getting stale, and that's pretty simple
> with the current behavior. We don't have a b
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 18:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What's happening is that you have a checkpoint_timeout of 5 minutes, and
> > that checkpoint must write a checkpoint record in the WAL, prompting the
> > archiving.
>
> > If you want it to happen less f
Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Keep in mind that even in the current system, your configuration is
> variable based on the checkpoint_timeout setting.
Yeah, and he has to keep this less than archive_timeout in order for
it to work the way he wants, which is probably not good for performa
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 18:06 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 5:47 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > And after
> > each archive_timeout, we test to see if we need to flush the current WAL
> > segment out to the archive; whic
"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 5:47 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And after
>> each archive_timeout, we test to see if we need to flush the current WAL
>> segment out to the archive; which is determined by whet
>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 5:47 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And after
> each archive_timeout, we test to see if we need to flush the current WAL
> segment out to the archive; which is determined by whether the write
> pointer is currently exactly a
13 matches
Mail list logo
