Re: Multiple WALs for PITR ?

On 2004-10-06, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Michael Kleiser <mkl(at)webde-ag(dot)de> wrote on 06.10.2004, 16:29:08:
>> I wan`t to use Point in Time Recovery
>> I allread read http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/backup-online.html#BACKUP-ARCHIVING-WAL
>>
>
> Good!
>
>> But I still wonder, if it is possible for PostgreSQL 8.0 to write multiple, redundant WAL-Files
>> like Oracles with its redo-log-groups ?
>
> Not currently.
>
> That was something I considered, though in the end lacked both
> implementation time and justification for.

WAL archival is more decoupled from WAL generation.

You can use this to exploit more IO parallelism so that the same
disk isn't being written to and read from at the same time.

Now, the concept of WAL groups would provide an extra level of
redundancy for your crash recovery files. On some of the cheaper sort of
systems that I've seen postgres deployed on this could be very useful.

[deletia]

--
Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
events not in their control.