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

From Selva manickaraja
Subject Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction
Date
Msg-id AANLkTini7zev+CyTLMGFFsaZucxCR35rBsgg_Znj8F-7@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Re: Too many WAL(s) despite low transaction  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
List pgsql-admin
Since the production database is running,  I plan to do now is this

1. Set archive_timeout = 20m (Does the change require db restart to take effect?)
2. Set  autovacuum=on and track_count=on (Does the change require db restart to take effect?)
    Does that mean we are running autovacuum?
3. Run VACUUM FREEZE ANALYZE since bulk loading was done earlier. (Can this be done while the db is active and on production?)

All 3 steps is to lower the WAL files that are being shipped out.

Is this a workable action to achieve the result required?

Please assist.

Thank you.

Regards,

Selvam

pgsql-admin by date:

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