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

Re: Proposed doc-patch: Identifying the Current WAL file

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com>, Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposed doc-patch: Identifying the Current WAL file
Date: 2006-04-15 17:57:43
Message-ID: 20274.1145123863@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docspgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Also, what happens if the log switch happens, and some data change is
> written to the new WAL file in the first second, but nothing happens to
> the database after that for a minute?  Your test would still show the
> old log file.

You seem to be assuming that ls will sort on the basis of the truncated
mtime that it displays, which is not the actual behavior of ls AFAIK.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-04-15 18:09:06
Subject: Re: Proposed doc-patch: Identifying the Current WAL file
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-04-15 17:56:32
Subject: Re: Proposed doc-patch: Identifying the Current WAL file

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-04-15 18:08:45
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reduce noise from tsort
Previous:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2006-04-15 17:57:20
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reduce noise from tsort

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