From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Patrick Macdonald <patrickm(at)redhat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em |
Date: | 2001-07-18 16:11:51 |
Message-ID: | 200107181611.f6IGBpJ14163@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Nonetheless, at some point an old WAL segment will become deletable
> (unless you have infinite space on your WAL disk). ISTM that at that
> point, it makes sense to consider recycling the file rather than
> deleting it.
Of course, if you plan to keep your WAL files on the same drive, you
don't really need point-in-time recovery anyway because you have the
physical data files. The only case I can keeping WAL files around for
point-in-time is if your WAL files are on a separate drive from the data
files, but even then, the page images should be stripped out and the WAL
archived somewhere else, hopefully in a configurable way to another
disk, tape, or networked computer.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-18 16:14:09 | Re: PQexec() 8191 bytes limit and text fields |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-18 16:04:28 | Re: analyze strangeness |