Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: WAL to RAW devices ?

From: Alex Vinogradovs <AVinogradovs(at)Clearpathnet(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WAL to RAW devices ?
Date: 2007-09-01 00:18:13
Message-ID: 1188605893.6082.51.camel@localhost (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
But would it be a problem to have only 1 active segment at all times ?
My inspiration pretty much comes from Oracle, where redo logs are
pre-configured and can be switched by a command issued to the instance.


> Just because you'd like that to be true doesn't make it true.  We have
> to manage a variable number of active segments; track whether a given
> segment is waiting for future use, active, waiting to be archived, etc;
> manage status signaling to the archiver process; and so on.  Now I'll
> freely admit that using a filesystem is only one of the ways that those
> problems could be attacked, but that's how they've been attacked in
> Postgres.  If you want to not have that functionality present then
> you'd need to rewrite all that code and provide some other
> infrastructure for it to use.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-09-01 00:23:39
Subject: Re: WAL to RAW devices ?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-09-01 00:08:10
Subject: Re: WAL to RAW devices ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group