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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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