| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Brian Wipf" <brian(at)clickspace(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] WAL archiving idle database |
| Date: | 2007-10-26 23:15:37 |
| Message-ID: | 1175.1193440537@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 5:47 PM, in message <695(dot)1193438855(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> And after
>> each archive_timeout, we test to see if we need to flush the current WAL
>> segment out to the archive; which is determined by whether the write
>> pointer is currently exactly at the start of a segment or not.
> Hmmm... We would actually prefer to get the WAL file at the
> specified interval.
Well, if it's a feature not a bug, that's fine with me. I wonder though
how predictable the behavior will really be with 8.3's distributed
checkpoints ... you might need to find another way anyhow.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2007-10-26 23:15:59 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL archiving idle database |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2007-10-26 23:06:10 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL archiving idle database |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2007-10-26 23:15:59 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL archiving idle database |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2007-10-26 23:06:10 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL archiving idle database |