| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andy Lau <alau(at)infer(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL log level compatibility |
| Date: | 2014-08-22 19:26:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20140822192659.GB21131@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:26:39PM +0000, Andy Lau wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Are 'wal_level = archive' vs 'wal_level = hot_standby' ok to mix? For example,
> let's say I had a PostgreSQL database running and creating WAL logs in the
> archive level. Then we switch to the hot standby level to support a hot
> standby, then go back to the archive level, all while uploading WAL logs to the
> same location. Would PostgreSQL be able to do PITR over this entire span of
> time?
Yes, PITR needs any wal_level other than "minimal".
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brodie S | 2014-08-22 19:31:11 | Re: ERROR: Problem running post install step |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-08-22 19:21:14 | Re: deadlock in single-row select-for-update + update scenario? How could it happen? |