Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction
Date
Msg-id 20110401023555.GE4116@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction  (Selva manickaraja <mavles78@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction  (Selva manickaraja <mavles78@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-admin
* Selva manickaraja (mavles78@gmail.com) wrote:
> Where you mentioned "after the reload" I suppose you meant restart right?

I'm not sure offhand if it requires a reload or a restart, that's why I
suggested doing a reload than then checking the logs to see if a restart
is required.

> About compressing you mentioned iirc, but how do I use it? are there any
> examples. I read about pg_compress before. Is that same?

No, I meant "use gzip".

> The configuration file shows that autovacuum=on and track_count=on to be
> commented out. That means that it is not running right? If that's the case,
> just uncommenting it now should get it working right?

Commented out means that the default value is used, which is on for both
of those.  That means that autovacuum should already be running.  Is
there some reason you think it isn't?

    Thanks,

        Stephen

Attachment

pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: Selva manickaraja
Date:
Subject: Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction
Next
From: Selva manickaraja
Date:
Subject: Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction