From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rob Butler <crodster2k(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Problem with PITR recovery |
Date: | 2005-04-19 16:20:51 |
Message-ID: | 22255.1113927651@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I was thinking of the archiver filling because of lots of almost-empty
> 16mb files. If you archive every five seconds, it is 11 Gigs/hour,
> which is not too bad, I guess, but I would bet compression would save
> space and I/O load too.
If you wanted to archive every few seconds, it would be worth cutting
the size of the segment files. At the moment I believe the segment
size is a pg_config_manual.h configuration item. Not sure if it would
be practical to make it run-time configurable, but in any case doing that
would help a lot for people who want short archive cycles.
But really, if that is the concern, I'd think you'd want Slony or some
other near-real-time replication mechanism. PITR is designed for people
for whom some-small-number-of-minutes is close enough.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-04-19 16:41:34 | Re: inet increment w/ int8 |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-19 16:03:27 | Re: inet increment w/ int8 |