Re: A doubt w.r.t WAL - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: A doubt w.r.t WAL
Date
Msg-id 3124.1058847228@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to A doubt w.r.t WAL  (Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>)
Responses Re: A doubt w.r.t WAL  (Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh@pop.jaring.my>)
List pgsql-general
Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> writes:
> Let's say I have only one wAL segment of 16MB and in a single transaction I
> put 20MB of data, say a text file dump inside a transaction.

AFAIR you cannot force the system to have only one WAL segment; it
*will* make another one when it has to.

Once it has established a checkpoint within the current WAL segment,
it is able to delete the previous segment, and will do so if you've
set the WAL parameters that small.  I don't really recommend doing
so however.  Creating and deleting WAL segments is expensive, and not
very productive compared to recycling them.  The out-of-the-box
settings allow the system to recycle three or so WAL segments.
Unless you're truly desperate for disk space you should not reduce
the default WAL settings.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Raymond
Date:
Subject: Tables, Views and Rules
Next
From: "Abhishek Goyal"
Date:
Subject: Postgres Database Error Codes and Error Messages