| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct |
| Date: | 2010-04-30 16:22:41 |
| Message-ID: | 201004301622.o3UGMf211337@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> If you aren't archiving then there's no guarantee that you'll still have
> >> a continuous WAL series starting from the start of the backup.
>
> > I wasn't really thinking of this use case, but you could set
> > wal_keep_segments "high enough".
>
> Ah. Okay, that seems like a workable approach, at least for people with
> reasonably predictable WAL loads. We could certainly improve on it
> later to make it more bulletproof, but it's usable now --- if we relax
> the error checks.
>
> (wal_keep_segments can be changed without restarting, right?)
Should we allow -1 to mean "keep all segments"?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-04-30 16:43:03 | Re: WAL page magic number (was Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct) |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-04-30 15:21:15 | Re: Invalidating dependent views and functions |