|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> If you aren't archiving then there's no guarantee that you'll still have
>> a continuous WAL series starting from the start of the backup.
> I wasn't really thinking of this use case, but you could set
> wal_keep_segments "high enough".
Ah. Okay, that seems like a workable approach, at least for people with
reasonably predictable WAL loads. We could certainly improve on it
later to make it more bulletproof, but it's usable now --- if we relax
the error checks.
(wal_keep_segments can be changed without restarting, right?)
> Not a configuration I would recommend
> for high availability, but should be fine for setting up a streaming
> replication standby for testing etc. If we don't allow
> pg_start/stop_backup() with archive_mode=off and max_wal_senders>0,
> there's no way to bootstrap a streaming replication standby without
Right. +1 for weakening the tests, then. Is there any use in looking
at wal_keep_segments as part of this test?
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Robert Haas||2010-04-28 18:21:57||Re: Add column if not exists (CINE)|
|Previous Message||Kevin Grittner||2010-04-28 18:21:49||explicit (void *) casts|