Re: [GENERAL] WAL logs multiplexing?
От | Dmitry Panov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] WAL logs multiplexing? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1135842474.4246.9.camel@ip6-localhost обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] WAL logs multiplexing?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 11:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Dmitry Panov <dmitry@tsu.tula.ru> writes: > > Yes, but if the server has crashed earlier the script won't be called > > and if the filesystem can't be recovered the changes will be lost. My > > point is the server should write into both (or more) files at the same > > time. > > As for that, I agree with the other person: a RAID array does that just > fine, and with much higher performance than we could muster. > BTW, I found something related in the TODO: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgtodo?pitr I think both approaches have the right to exist, but I prefer my because it looks more straightforward, it insures up-to-date recovery (no delays) and it reduces the traffic (as the partial logs have to be transferred in full by the proposed "archive_current_wal_command"). The only drawback is performance. Best regards, -- Dmitry O Panov | mailto:dmitry@tsu.tula.ru Tula State University | Fidonet: Dmitry Panov, 2:5022/5.13 Dept. of CS & NIT | http://www.tsu.tula.ru/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: