hi Tom, Please check my findings below older -rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 2 02:47 00000001000036CF000000A4 -rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 2 02:45 00000001000036CF000000A3 -rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 2 02:44 00000001000036CF000000A5 please note that above files are of June 2nd and once it is archived it will be recycled with same name with current timestamp, check below: newer -rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 4 08:19 00000001000036CF000000A0 -rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 4 08:20 00000001000036CF000000A1 -rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 4 08:22 00000001000036CF000000A2 drwx------ 2 enterprisedb enterprisedb 311296 Jun 4 08:22 archive_status -rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 4 08:23 00000001000036CF000000A3 -rw------- 1 enterprisedb enterprisedb 16777216 Jun 4 08:23 00000001000036CF000000A4 the file names ending with A3 and A4 are the files that got generated with same name with the latest timestamp. So that's why I called it strange behavior, please suggest your opinion. Regards, Atul On 6/4/21, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Atul Kumar <akumar14871@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> once old WAL files of pg_xlog directory are archived in >> '/nfslogs/wal/' directory then these WAL files are getting generated >> with the same name in pg_xlog directory. > > Are you sure you are describing the behavior accurately? > > What I would expect to happen, once an old WAL file has been archived > and the server knows its contents are no longer needed, is for the > WAL file to be "recycled" by renaming it to have a name that's in-the- > future in the WAL name series, whereupon it will wait its turn to be > reused by future WAL writes. On most filesystems the rename as such > doesn't change the file's mod time, so you'll see files that seem > to be in-the-future according to their names, but have old timestamps. > > (There's a limit on how many future WAL files we'll tee up this way, > so it's possible that an old one would just get deleted instead. > But the steady-state behavior is to just rotate them around.) > > regards, tom lane >
