On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 08:20, Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > On Monday 16 December 2002 07:43 pm, you wrote: > > Consider that on the slave which is now the active server (master dead), > > it's possible that the slave's PITR's will be recycled before the master > > can come back up. As such, unless there is a, an archival process for > > PITR or b, a method of streaming PITR's off for archival, the odds of > > using PITR to recover the master (resync if you will) seem greatly > > reduced as you will be unable to replay PITR on the master for > > synchronization. > > I agree. Since we are talking about features in future release, I think it > should be added to TODO if not already there. > > I don't know about WAL numbering but AFAIU, it increments and old files are > removed once there are enough WAL files as specified in posgresql.conf. IIRC > there are some perl based replication project exist already which use this > feature. >
The problem with this is that most people, AFAICT, are going to size WAL based on their performance/sizing requirements and not based on theoretical estimates which someone might make to allow for a window of failure. That is, I don't believe increasing the number of WAL's is going to satisfactorily address the issue. -- Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copeland Computer Consulting ---------------------------(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
