Simon Riggs wrote:
> >Bruce Momjian
> > 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?
>
> That certainly was my initial feeling, though I believe it is possible
> to accommodate both viewpoints. I would not want to have only the
> alternative viewpoint, I must confess.
>
Added to PITR TODO list. Anything else to add:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/main/writings/pgsql/project
-- 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