Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Patrick Macdonald <patrickm(at)redhat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em
Date: 2001-07-18 16:11:51
Message-ID: 200107181611.f6IGBpJ14163@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Nonetheless, at some point an old WAL segment will become deletable
> (unless you have infinite space on your WAL disk). ISTM that at that
> point, it makes sense to consider recycling the file rather than
> deleting it.

Of course, if you plan to keep your WAL files on the same drive, you
don't really need point-in-time recovery anyway because you have the
physical data files. The only case I can keeping WAL files around for
point-in-time is if your WAL files are on a separate drive from the data
files, but even then, the page images should be stripped out and the WAL
archived somewhere else, hopefully in a configurable way to another
disk, tape, or networked computer.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-07-18 16:14:09 Re: PQexec() 8191 bytes limit and text fields
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-07-18 16:04:28 Re: analyze strangeness