| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived |
| Date: | 2006-07-25 15:26:05 |
| Message-ID: | 200607251526.k6PFQ5F11728@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > I assumed we would have a function like pg_finish_wal_segment(), and
> > server stop and stop_backup would call it too,
>
> That idea is *exactly* what I'm objecting to.
>
> > the reason being, it
> > would greatly simplify our documentation on how to use PITR if these
> > were done automatically.
>
> No it wouldn't, it'd just bloat the already excessive WAL volume.
Well, it only would happen when you have PITR enabled.
For example, if you do pg_stop_backup(), in what cases would you not
also call pg_finish_wal_segment()? I can't think of one. Maybe the
server restart case isn't necessary.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-25 15:26:21 | Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-07-25 15:24:30 | Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived |