Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived
Date: 2006-07-25 15:22:44
Message-ID: 10265.1153840964@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> I assumed we would have a function like pg_finish_wal_segment(), and
> server stop and stop_backup would call it too,

That idea is *exactly* what I'm objecting to.

> the reason being, it
> would greatly simplify our documentation on how to use PITR if these
> were done automatically.

No it wouldn't, it'd just bloat the already excessive WAL volume.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2006-07-25 15:24:30 Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2006-07-25 15:20:40 Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived