On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Once the db is restarted, I will post the results to you to let you know how well the WAL(s) are fairing.
* Selva manickaraja (mavles78@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> Where you mentioned "after the reload" I suppose you meant restart right?I'm not sure offhand if it requires a reload or a restart, that's why I
suggested doing a reload than then checking the logs to see if a restart
is required.
I have put it in. Log file does not complaint, neither do I see the WAL(s) reducing. So I'm waiting for Friday lunch time in 1 hour to restart the db.
> About compressing you mentioned iirc, but how do I use it? are there any
> examples. I read about pg_compress before. Is that same?
No, I meant "use gzip".
OK, I saw a sample in the PostgreSQL site, I will try that on the development machine first.
> The configuration file shows that autovacuum=on and track_count=on to beCommented out means that the default value is used, which is on for both
> commented out. That means that it is not running right? If that's the case,
> just uncommenting it now should get it working right?
of those. That means that autovacuum should already be running. Is
there some reason you think it isn't?
I see. Cause I was thinking that all these surge of WAL was due to the fact that autovacuum was not running. Is there a utility to check if autovacuum is running or not?
Once the db is restarted, I will post the results to you to let you know how well the WAL(s) are fairing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk2VOgsACgkQrzgMPqB3kignEgCdFE+Ij+EbX+zC/rUtugZrG1nA
sHoAoIZlmfjTlONs0fPA//Rz6g0HRoVn
=D+LS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
