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
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-07-25 15:57:30|
|Subject: Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-07-25 15:53:06|
|Subject: Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived |