Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > For example, if you do pg_stop_backup(), in what cases would you not > > > also call pg_finish_wal_segment()? I can't think of one. > > > > I can't see why you would need to, unless your intention is not to run > > PITR at all but only to make a filesystem backup instead of using > > pg_dump. > > If thats all you want you can set > archive_command = 'echo %f %p > /dev/null'
Uh, what good is a file system backup without the WAL files modified during the backup? > > Normally you'd be running a continuing archival process and > > there's no particular need to force the current WAL segment off to > > archive at that exact instant. > > That's exactly the point of contention. When we originally completed > PITR we thought that was acceptable. It isn't and many people have stuck > pins in effigies of me since then. :-/ > > > My point here is that forcing the current segment to archive is a > > function of whatever your continuous-archiving process is, and it's > > not necessarily tied to backups. We should not prejudge when people > > want that fairly-expensive function to be invoked. > > The point is until that last WAL file is backed up, the whole backup is > useless. It isn't good policy to have a backup's value be contingent on > some future event. Good analysis. -- 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 1: 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
