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
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? |