From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(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 16:30:53 |
Message-ID: | 200607251630.k6PGUro23360@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Assuming such a case, would it be possible to have two functions?
>
> > pg_stop_backup()
> > pg_stop_backup(boolean); --parameter says log switch or not
>
> Well, it seems everyone but me thinks that pg_stop_backup should
> force a WAL switch, so I'll yield on that point. But we still
> need the separate function too, so that people can manually force
> a WAL switch --- just the same as we still have a manual CHECKPOINT
> command.
Agreed, with separate function too. No sense in limiting the toolkit,
as you explained.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2006-07-25 16:31:04 | Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Saito | 2006-07-25 16:30:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Patch for VS.Net 2005's strxfrm() bug |