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]

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to