From: | Dmitry Panov <dmitry(at)tsu(dot)tula(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] WAL logs multiplexing? |
Date: | 2005-12-29 07:47:54 |
Message-ID: | 1135842474.4246.9.camel@ip6-localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 11:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dmitry Panov <dmitry(at)tsu(dot)tula(dot)ru> writes:
> > Yes, but if the server has crashed earlier the script won't be called
> > and if the filesystem can't be recovered the changes will be lost. My
> > point is the server should write into both (or more) files at the same
> > time.
>
> As for that, I agree with the other person: a RAID array does that just
> fine, and with much higher performance than we could muster.
>
BTW, I found something related in the TODO:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgtodo?pitr
I think both approaches have the right to exist, but I prefer my because
it looks more straightforward, it insures up-to-date recovery (no
delays) and it reduces the traffic (as the partial logs have to be
transferred in full by the proposed "archive_current_wal_command"). The
only drawback is performance.
Best regards,
--
Dmitry O Panov | mailto:dmitry(at)tsu(dot)tula(dot)ru
Tula State University | Fidonet: Dmitry Panov, 2:5022/5.13
Dept. of CS & NIT | http://www.tsu.tula.ru/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-12-29 07:56:52 | Re: Validating User |
Previous Message | Gregory S. Williamson | 2005-12-29 07:42:19 | Re: Detaching database |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-12-29 09:33:13 | Re: localization problem (and solution) |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-12-29 07:14:03 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Minor doc tweak: "NOT NULL" is |