On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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?)
> Should we allow -1 to mean "keep all segments"?
If that's what you want to do, use archive_mode.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-04-30 17:39:42|
|Subject: Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re:
[COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-04-30 16:43:03|
|Subject: Re: WAL page magic number (was Re: Re: [COMMITTERS]
pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct)|