| From: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Big 7.4 items |
| Date: | 2002-12-16 14:42:29 |
| Message-ID: | 200212162012.29269.shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday 16 December 2002 08:07 pm, you wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 08:20, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > I don't know about WAL numbering but AFAIU, it increments and old files
> > are removed once there are enough WAL files as specified in
> > posgresql.conf. IIRC there are some perl based replication project exist
> > already which use this feature.
>
> The problem with this is that most people, AFAICT, are going to size WAL
> based on their performance/sizing requirements and not based on
> theoretical estimates which someone might make to allow for a window of
> failure. That is, I don't believe increasing the number of WAL's is
> going to satisfactorily address the issue.
Sorry for not being clear. When I said, WAL numbering, I meant WAL naming
conventions where numbers are used to mark WAL files.
It is not number of WAL files. It is entirely upto the installation and IIRC,
even in replication project(Sorry I forgot the exact name), you can set
number of WAL files that it can have.
Shridhar
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-16 14:59:21 | Re: FW: Duplicate oids! |
| Previous Message | Greg Copeland | 2002-12-16 14:37:53 | Re: Big 7.4 items |