Hi Jeff.
Thanks for the clarification.
I'll adjust wal_keep_segments for the expected biggest table in the backup.
Best regards,
Mads
From: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mads.Tandrup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<Mads.Tandrup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Cc: Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@xxxxxxxxxx>,
"pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 06-06-2013 18:33
Subject: Re: Streaming replication with sync slave, but
disconnects due to missing WAL segments
Sent by: pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:26 PM, <Mads.Tandrup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi
Thanks for your reply. Do you know of any options that I could give
pg_dump/psql to avoid creating one big transaction? I'm using the
plain text format for pg_dump.
For the plain text format, it is already not one big transaction, unless
you specify to -1 to the psql. However, the load of any individual table
will still be a single transaction, so for a very large table it will still
be a very long transaction.
Using pg_dump for --inserts could get around this, but it would probably be
better to fix the fundamental problem by increasing wal_keep_segments or
something of that nature.
Cheers,
Jeff
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
______________________________________________________________________
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
