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

Re: Keeping separate WAL segments for each database

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers ML <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Keeping separate WAL segments for each database
Date: 2010-07-01 02:04:15
Message-ID: 4C2BF79F.3010001@joeconway.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 06/30/2010 05:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> And at any rate, the per-database thing isn't really the design goal,
> anyway.

FWIW, I've run into more than one client where PITR and/or warm standby
on a per-database level would be a killer feature.

Joe

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-07-01 02:21:52
Subject: Re: Keeping separate WAL segments for each database
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-07-01 00:52:18
Subject: Re: Keeping separate WAL segments for each database

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2013 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group