Tom Lane wrote: > No, it probably means that neither one has been written at all yet. > Typically, when a WAL segment is deemed no longer needed, the file isn't > physically removed but is merely renamed into place as a future segment. > The idea is to reduce unnecessary filesystem work as we create and delete > WAL segments. You could check this out if you have pg_xlogdump at hand, > by seeing whether the WAL file's first page header claims to belong to the > segment indicated by the file name, or to some much-older segment. This may be a good time to point out that pg_xlogdump fails completely when a file's contents does not match the file name, with no indication about what a better file name would be. In other words, if a file has been recycled and not written to yet under the new name, it doesn't tell you anything useful. This is pretty annoying. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
