Re: Review of last summer's PITR patch

On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 18:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Cott Lang <cott(at)internetstaff(dot)com> writes:
> > * The ability to force a WAL log switch to ensure all changes during the
> > backup are flushed to archived logs and copied.
>
> Why does that require a log switch? You can copy the active log file in
> any case. (There was actually code to do that in J.R.'s patch, which I
> disregarded because I see no point in it ...)

Maybe it doesn't, I'm certainly no expert in PG internals. :)

It just seems like a Good Thing (TM) to ensure that any possible changes
to the data files during the backup are in the logs that are copied to
the archive destination and backed up as part of the hot backup.