Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > >> > Tom Lane wrote: > >> >> If you aren't archiving then there's no guarantee that you'll still have > >> >> a continuous WAL series starting from the start of the backup. > >> > >> > I wasn't really thinking of this use case, but you could set > >> > wal_keep_segments "high enough". > >> > >> Ah. ?Okay, that seems like a workable approach, at least for people with > >> reasonably predictable WAL loads. ?We could certainly improve on it > >> later to make it more bulletproof, but it's usable now --- if we relax > >> the error checks. > >> > >> (wal_keep_segments can be changed without restarting, right?) > > > > Should we allow -1 to mean "keep all segments"? > > If that's what you want to do, use archive_mode.
Uh, I assume that will require me to store the WAL files somewhere else, rather than keeping them in /pg_xlog, which I thought was the goal. Am I missing something? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
