| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: allowing wal_level change at run time |
| Date: | 2015-08-19 15:51:47 |
| Message-ID: | CABUevExh+1kgi6eO2VMa=e_08_Z-n=i_rE8aovsnVU9n1zpEcw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-08-19 10:49:46 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > What happens "the first time"? Meaning I'm on wal_level=minimal and take
> a
> > base backup. Then when the replica first connects 10 minutes later, it
> > needs WAL back in time, which was logged at wal_level=minimal.
>
> > So you'd need to bump it up whenever a base backup is done -- but then
> you
> > can't drop it back down again or your base backup will be useless.
>
> > Or am I missing something?
>
> Nope. Requiring pg_basebackup to automatically create such a
> 'non-reserving' slot doesn't seem to be too bad to me.
>
That's doable - but what about manual base backups? And if they don't go
away, what about the ones that are generated by the
nightly/weekly/hourly/whatever "pg_basebackup -x" ones?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-19 15:56:22 | Re: allowing wal_level change at run time |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-08-19 15:46:06 | Re: Make HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC more concurrent |