On 25.04.22 20:39, Stephen Frost wrote:
> All of which isn't an issue if we don't have an external tool trying to
> do this and instead have the server doing it as the server knows its
> internal status, that the archive command has been failing long enough
> to pass the configuration threshold, and that the WAL isn't needed for
> crash recovery. The ability to avoid having to crash and go through
> that process is pretty valuable. Still, a crash may still happen and
> it'd be useful to have a clean way to deal with it. I'm not really a
> fan of having to essentially configure this external command as well as
> have the server configured. Have we settled that there's no way to make
> the server archive while there's no space available and before trying to
> write out more data?
I would also be in favor of not having an external command and instead
pursue a solution built into the server along the ways you have
outlined. Besides the better integration and less potential for misuse
that can be achieved that way, maintaining a separate tool has some
constant overhead and if users only use it every ten years on average,
it seems not worth it.