Re: Dynamically-sized WAL files

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:39 +0000, Thom Brown wrote:

> Is there a reason we require fixed-size WAL files?

Currently we reuse the files, which is much easier with fixed size
files.

It might have been interesting once to pass the size at log switch
through to the archiver as a parameter, though we didn't do that at the
time. Streaming is the way forwards, not file-by-file.

--
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com