hi Tom,
Please check my findings below
older
-rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 2 02:47
00000001000036CF000000A4
-rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 2 02:45
00000001000036CF000000A3
-rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 2 02:44
00000001000036CF000000A5
please note that above files are of June 2nd and once it is archived
it will be recycled with same name with current timestamp, check
below:
newer
-rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 4 08:19
00000001000036CF000000A0
-rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 4 08:20
00000001000036CF000000A1
-rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 4 08:22
00000001000036CF000000A2
drwx------ 2 enterprisedb enterprisedb 311296 Jun 4 08:22 archive_status
-rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 4 08:23
00000001000036CF000000A3
-rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 4 08:23
00000001000036CF000000A4
the file names ending with A3 and A4 are the files that got generated
with same name with the latest timestamp.
So that's why I called it strange behavior, please suggest your opinion.
Regards,
Atul
On 6/4/21, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Atul Kumar <akumar14871@gmail.com> writes:
>> once old WAL files of pg_xlog directory are archived in
>> '/nfslogs/wal/' directory then these WAL files are getting generated
>> with the same name in pg_xlog directory.
>
> Are you sure you are describing the behavior accurately?
>
> What I would expect to happen, once an old WAL file has been archived
> and the server knows its contents are no longer needed, is for the
> WAL file to be "recycled" by renaming it to have a name that's in-the-
> future in the WAL name series, whereupon it will wait its turn to be
> reused by future WAL writes. On most filesystems the rename as such
> doesn't change the file's mod time, so you'll see files that seem
> to be in-the-future according to their names, but have old timestamps.
>
> (There's a limit on how many future WAL files we'll tee up this way,
> so it's possible that an old one would just get deleted instead.
> But the steady-state behavior is to just rotate them around.)
>
> regards, tom lane
>
