Thread: Recycled Log Files

We are running Postgres 7.3.4 on Solaris 6 on an E3500.  I noticed the
following messages, and attempted to remedy the situation by upping our
wal_buffers to 64, thinking we might need more room.  wal_files seems to
have gone away in this version or I would have increased that as well.

I'm still seeing the same thing in the logs.  Show all in psql shows
wal_beffers has been increased.

Is this even a problem?  If so, which know do I really need to tweak?

Thank you,
Naomi




2004-02-05 16:48:16 LOG:  recycled transaction log file 0000000600000029
2004-02-05 16:48:27 LOG:  recycled transaction log file 000000060000002A
2004-02-05 16:48:27 LOG:  recycled transaction log file 000000060000002B
2004-02-05 16:48:27 LOG:  recycled transaction log file 000000060000002C
2004-02-05 16:48:38 LOG:  recycled transaction log file 000000060000002D
2004-02-05 16:48:38 LOG:  recycled transaction log file 000000060000002E
2004-02-05 16:48:38 LOG:  recycled transaction log file 000000060000002F



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Walker                         Chief Information Officer
                                               Eldorado Computing, Inc.
nwalker@eldocomp.com           602-604-3100

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forget past mistakes. Forget failures. Forget everything except what you're
going to do now and do it.
- William Durant, founder of General Motors

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE --

This message is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain
informationthat is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the
intendedaddressee, nor authorized to receive for the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use,
copy,disclose or distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received
thismessage in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email, and delete the message. Thank you. 

On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 11:34:18AM -0700, Naomi Walker wrote:
> We are running Postgres 7.3.4 on Solaris 6 on an E3500.  I noticed the
> following messages, and attempted to remedy the situation by upping our
> wal_buffers to 64, thinking we might need more room.  wal_files seems to
> have gone away in this version or I would have increased that as well.
>

Actually, this is a good thing: it means the logs are getting cleared
and available for re-use.  But what I'm wondering is why you're going
through them so fast.  What are you doing in this period?

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant-
garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism.
                --Brad Holland

Naomi Walker <nwalker@eldocomp.com> writes:
> We are running Postgres 7.3.4 on Solaris 6 on an E3500.  I noticed the
> following messages, and attempted to remedy the situation by upping our
> wal_buffers to 64, thinking we might need more room.

> 2004-02-05 16:48:16 LOG:  recycled transaction log file 0000000600000029
> 2004-02-05 16:48:27 LOG:  recycled transaction log file 000000060000002A
> 2004-02-05 16:48:27 LOG:  recycled transaction log file 000000060000002B

This is normal operation.  I'm not sure why we have it as LOG level and
not DEBUG-something.  I suppose the messages are slightly useful to give
an idea of how fast you are using up log segments, but now that
wal_files isn't a separately tweakable parameter it's not obvious why
the average DBA would care.

            regards, tom lane