Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > 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? > > Well, one of us is. Why would you want to retain all of your WAL logs > in pg_xlog forever?
Well, this email thread mentioned a case where you needed to increase wal_keep_segments to a sufficiently-high value, and of course figuring out such a value is harder than just having a way of turning off recycling with -1. -- 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
