Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Eduardo Piombino
Subject Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server
Date
Msg-id e24c1d9d1001130753g3a184d72jfed374ae63349a4@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server  (Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>)
List pgsql-performance
With that said, I assume my current version of pgsql DOES make all this heavy work go through WAL logging.

Curious thing is that I remember (of course) reviewing logs of the crash times, and I didn't see anything strange, not even the famous warning "you are making checkpoints too often. maybe you should consider using extending the checkpoint_segments parameter".

I will check it again.
Besides, I will try to gather as much information on the system itself (RAID controllers, disk vendors, etc).
Thank you, will keep you posted.

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com> wrote:
Eduardo Piombino escreveu:
> Maybe it does not get logged at all until the ALTER is completed?
>
This feature [1] was implemented a few months ago and it will be available
only in the next PostgreSQL version (8.5).

[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2009-11/msg00018.php


--
 Euler Taveira de Oliveira
 http://www.timbira.com/

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue