On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:49 AM, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> wrote:
> On 7/16/2013 6:21 PM, David B Harris wrote:
>>
>> Actually though (if any PostgreSQL developers are paying attention), it
>> might be useful to have a new WAL segment-managing behaviour. With the
>> advent of the replication functionality (which is amazing stuff, thanks
>> so much), I'd expect fewer and fewer installations to use WAL archiving.
>> If WAL archiving is disabled, it might make sense for pg_start_backup()
>> to postpone the deletion of WAL segments until pg_stop_backup().
>
>
> WAL archiving has another completely different use case, which is PITR,
> Point In Time Recovery.
Yep, and it is thought as safer to *always* keep a WAL archive working
in parallel with replication. Just for safety.
--
Michael