Simon Riggs wrote:
> User-selectable behaviour? OK. That's how we deal with fsync; I can
> relate to that. That hadn't been part of my thinking because of the
> importance I'd attached to the log files themselves, but I can go with
> that, if that's what was meant.
>
> So, if we had a parameter called Wal_archive_policy that has 3 settings:
> None = no archiving
> Optimistic = archive, but if for some reason log space runs out then
> make space by dropping the oldest archive logs
> Strict = if log space runs out, stop further write transactions from
> committing, by whatever means, even if this takes down dbms.
>
> That way, we've got something akin to transaction isolation level with
> various levels of protection.
Yep, we will definately need something like that. Basically whenever
the logs are being archived, you have to stop the database if you can't
archive, no?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073