| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Enabling archive_mode without restart |
| Date: | 2008-10-31 16:17:23 |
| Message-ID: | 490B2F93.50502@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> It certainly makes more sense to do this:
> archive_mode = off
> archive_command = '/archive/command/used/during/snapshot/backups'
>
> I could live with diddling the command to control archiving.
>
> It doesn't log anything extra when archive_mode is on?
Depends on your logging level. I don't know that there is noticeable
difference between the two in terms of performance. That said, it is
still silly that we have to handle it in such a hacky way. Frankly, it
should be a catalog reloption of some sort... "ALTER CATALOG (which
doesn't exist) archive_mode TO off" but I digress.
>
> Why is it safer to change archive_command to a no-op on the fly than
> to turn off archive mode?
I think it is because one launches a process that controls another
process. Just like autovacuum or the logger. You can change what the
children processes do but not the parent.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> -Kevin
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Somasekhar Ramadurgam | 2008-10-31 16:30:26 | Re: Help in processing multiple parse nodes. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-31 16:16:34 | Re: WIP patch: convert SQL-language functions to return tuplestores |