Re: Big 7.4 items

On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 08:20, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On Monday 16 December 2002 07:43 pm, you wrote:
> > Consider that on the slave which is now the active server (master dead),
> > it's possible that the slave's PITR's will be recycled before the master
> > can come back up. As such, unless there is a, an archival process for
> > PITR or b, a method of streaming PITR's off for archival, the odds of
> > using PITR to recover the master (resync if you will) seem greatly
> > reduced as you will be unable to replay PITR on the master for
> > synchronization.
>
> I agree. Since we are talking about features in future release, I think it
> should be added to TODO if not already there.
>
> I don't know about WAL numbering but AFAIU, it increments and old files are
> removed once there are enough WAL files as specified in posgresql.conf. IIRC
> there are some perl based replication project exist already which use this
> feature.
>

The problem with this is that most people, AFAICT, are going to size WAL
based on their performance/sizing requirements and not based on
theoretical estimates which someone might make to allow for a window of
failure. That is, I don't believe increasing the number of WAL's is
going to satisfactorily address the issue.

--
Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net>
Copeland Computer Consulting