| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: allowing wal_level change at run time |
| Date: | 2015-08-19 13:34:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20150819133411.GB5394@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-08-19 10:49:46 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> What happens "the first time"? Meaning I'm on wal_level=minimal and take a
> base backup. Then when the replica first connects 10 minutes later, it
> needs WAL back in time, which was logged at wal_level=minimal.
> So you'd need to bump it up whenever a base backup is done -- but then you
> can't drop it back down again or your base backup will be useless.
> Or am I missing something?
Nope. Requiring pg_basebackup to automatically create such a
'non-reserving' slot doesn't seem to be too bad to me.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-08-19 13:40:51 | Re: Bug? ExecChooseHashTableSize() got assertion failed with crazy number of rows |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-19 13:32:44 | Re: allowing wal_level change at run time |