"Chad R. Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 10:35 PM 10/17/01 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> There are no plans to make WAL into a replication facility, for reasons
>> which were discussed on the developer lists as well.
> But we =are= still planning to use the WAL to implement a point-in-time
> recovery process, yes?
In its present form it's far too bulky to be kept around over any long
period of time --- or didn't you notice all the squawks about WAL files
overrunning disk as soon as anyone had a long-running transaction?
I'd say it's quite useless for PIT recovery unless we implement some
sort of filtering/compression process to produce an archivable WAL.
Which is doable, certainly, but it's not in the present implementation.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
