Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em

From: Patrick Macdonald <patrickm(at)redhat(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em
Date: 2001-07-18 14:26:51
Message-ID: 3B559CAB.58DB931A@redhat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hmmm... my prior appends to this newsgroup are stalled. Hopefully,
they'll be available soon.

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> What you may really be saying is that the existing scheme for management
> of log segments is inappropriate for PIT usage; if so feel free to
> propose a better one. But I don't see how recycling of no-longer-wanted
> segments can break anything.

Yes, but in a very roundabout way (or so it seems). The main point
that I was trying to illustrate was that if a database supports
point-in-time recovery, recycling of the only available log segments
is a bad thing. And, yes, in practice if you have point-in-time
recovery enabled you better archive your logs with your backup to
ensure that you can roll forward as expected.

A possible solution (as I mentioned before)) is to have 2 methods
of logging available: circular and forward-recoverable. When a
database is created, the creator selects which type of logging to
perform. The log segments are exactly the same, only the recycling
method is different.

Hmmm... the more I look at this, the more interested I become.

Cheers,
Patrick

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ross J. Reedstrom 2001-07-18 14:48:28 Re: pg_depend
Previous Message mlw 2001-07-18 12:52:54 C functions, variable number of params?