| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived |
| Date: | 2006-07-25 15:45:19 |
| Message-ID: | 10651.1153842319@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I see no need for that to be "automatic". I'd vote for a simple
>> function pg_finish_wal_segment() or something like that, which you
>> call just after pg_stop_backup() if you want this behavior. Trying
>> to tie it into pg_stop_backup() will only make things more complicated
>> and less flexible.
> Putting it into pg_stop_backup was what we previously agreed.
> Where is the loss of flexibility?
I don't see why you think this function should be tied to making a
backup. There are other reasons for wanting to force a WAL switch
than that, and there are scenarios in which you don't need a WAL
switch at the end of a backup.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-07-25 15:48:15 | Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-07-25 15:41:52 | Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived |