Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I see no need for that to be "automatic". I'd vote for a simple > >> function pg_finish_wal_segment() or something like that, which you > >> call just after pg_stop_backup() if you want this behavior. Trying > >> to tie it into pg_stop_backup() will only make things more complicated > >> and less flexible. > > > Putting it into pg_stop_backup was what we previously agreed. > > Where is the loss of flexibility? > > I don't see why you think this function should be tied to making a > backup. There are other reasons for wanting to force a WAL switch > than that, and there are scenarios in which you don't need a WAL
Yes, that is why we would have a separate function too. > switch at the end of a backup. Well, I figured if you just did a backup, you would want a switch in _most_ cases, and since you just did a backup, I figured an extra WAL file would be minimal additional overhead. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
