Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em
От | Patrick Macdonald |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3B559CAB.58DB931A@redhat.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em
Re: Idea: recycle WAL segments, don't delete/recreate 'em |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hmmm... my prior appends to this newsgroup are stalled. Hopefully, they'll be available soon. Tom Lane wrote: > > What you may really be saying is that the existing scheme for management > of log segments is inappropriate for PIT usage; if so feel free to > propose a better one. But I don't see how recycling of no-longer-wanted > segments can break anything. Yes, but in a very roundabout way (or so it seems). The main point that I was trying to illustrate was that if a database supports point-in-time recovery, recycling of the only available log segments is a bad thing. And, yes, in practice if you have point-in-time recovery enabled you better archive your logs with your backup to ensure that you can roll forward as expected. A possible solution (as I mentioned before)) is to have 2 methods of logging available: circular and forward-recoverable. When a database is created, the creator selects which type of logging to perform. The log segments are exactly the same, only the recycling method is different. Hmmm... the more I look at this, the more interested I become. Cheers, Patrick
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: