| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposed doc-patch: Identifying the Current WAL file |
| Date: | 2006-04-14 15:44:56 |
| Message-ID: | 200604141544.k3EFiuw20847@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-patches |
Richard Huxton wrote:
> Reading Tom's posting here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-04/msg00499.php
>
> I just realised we don't seem to mention this in the docs anywhere. I
> propose adding a short paragraph to 23.3.1
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/backup-online.html#BACKUP-ONLINE-CAVEATS
>
> After "Except in the case of retrying a failure, it will be called only
> once for any given file name."
>
> To identify the current, partially-filled WAL segment, sort first by
> mtime and second by file name. That is, take the latest mtime among the
> properly-named files, breaking ties by taking the higher filename.
I am confused by this. Why do both mtime and file name need to be
checked?
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-14 16:07:15 | Re: Proposed doc-patch: Identifying the Current WAL file |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2006-04-13 16:58:21 | Proposed doc-patch: Identifying the Current WAL file |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-14 16:07:15 | Re: Proposed doc-patch: Identifying the Current WAL file |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-04-14 14:46:08 | Re: pg_ctl options checking |