On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Robert Treat <r...@xzilla.net> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I agree that basically archive_command should not overwrite an existing >>> file. >>> But if the size of existing file is less than 16MB, it should do that. >>> Otherwise, >>> that WAL file would be lost forever. >> >> I think best practice in this case is that if you ever find an >> existing file with the same name already in place, you should error >> and investigate. We don't ship around partially completed WAL files, >> and finding an existing one probably means something went wrong. (Of >> course, we use rsync instead of copy/move, so we have some better >> guarantees about this). > > That's an option. But I don't think that finding an existing file is so > serious > problem.
The recommendation should be that the archived files are never overwritten because that prevents a huge range of data loss bugs and kills them stone dead. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers