From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Rhhh Lin <ruanlinehan(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Backup strategy using 'wal_keep_segments' |
Date: | 2017-10-30 16:41:11 |
Message-ID: | 20171030164111.GF4628@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Greetings,
* Rhhh Lin (ruanlinehan(at)hotmail(dot)com) wrote:
> A colleague recently suggested that instead of implementing an 'archive_command' to push archivable WALs to a secondary location (for further backup to tape for example), we could instead persist the WAL files in their current location by setting the "wal_keep_segments" parameter to an extreme value e.g. 1000 and have the 'archive_command' do nothing.
Michael's points are good and I wouldn't recommend using this archive
command either, but what isn't clear to me is what you're actaully
trying to solve by using such a method..? You haven't said anywhere
what's wrong with archive_command (I know that there certainly are some
things wrong with it, of course, but there are solutions to a number of
those issues that isn't a hack like this ...).
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adam Brusselback | 2017-10-30 16:42:31 | Re: UPDATE syntax change (column-list UPDATE syntax fails with single column) |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2017-10-30 16:34:04 | Re: UPDATE syntax change (column-list UPDATE syntax fails with single column) |