From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: XLogArchivingActive |
Date: | 2006-05-25 16:03:48 |
Message-ID: | 13545.1148573028@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is silly. Why not just turn archiving on and off?
> Not quite. I want online backup, but no archiving. Currently, I have to
> edit postgresql.conf and SIGHUP to "turn on archiving" configuring a
> (hopefully) writable directory, do the backup, edit postgresql.conf and
> SIGHUP again. Not too convenient...
You don't get to count the edit/SIGHUP steps, because those would be the
same for any other GUC.
AFAICS you could get the effect by setting up an archive_command script
sleep 100
exit 1
so that the archiver will do nothing.
BTW, I don't actually understand why you want this at all. If you're
not going to keep a continuing series of WAL files, you don't have any
PITR capability. What you're proposing seems like a bulky, unportable,
hard-to-use equivalent of pg_dump. Why not use pg_dump?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2006-05-25 16:16:52 | Inefficient bytea escaping? |
Previous Message | Jeremy Drake | 2006-05-25 15:43:01 | psql \copy warning |