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

Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived
Date: 2006-07-25 15:54:33
Message-ID: 200607251554.k6PFsX216909@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I see no need for that to be "automatic".  I'd vote for a simple
> >> function pg_finish_wal_segment() or something like that, which you
> >> call just after pg_stop_backup() if you want this behavior.  Trying
> >> to tie it into pg_stop_backup() will only make things more complicated
> >> and less flexible.
> 
> > Putting it into pg_stop_backup was what we previously agreed.
> > Where is the loss of flexibility?
> 
> I don't see why you think this function should be tied to making a
> backup.  There are other reasons for wanting to force a WAL switch
> than that, and there are scenarios in which you don't need a WAL

Yes, that is why we would have a separate function too.

> switch at the end of a backup.

Well, I figured if you just did a backup, you would want a switch in
_most_ cases, and since you just did a backup, I figured an extra WAL
file would be minimal additional overhead.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-07-25 15:57:30
Subject: Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-07-25 15:53:06
Subject: Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived

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