Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. You are assuming here that the continuous archiving process is identical to the WAL part of the base-backup process. If what you want is an identifiable self-contained base backup then you copy off the WAL files along with the tar dump; there's no need to force a switch of the current WAL file before you copy it. I don't disagree that in many scenarios the switch is needful. What I'm saying is that we should provide a separately accessible function for it. PG's PITR support is basically designed as a toolkit that lets you build a PITR solution, not as do-everything, one-size-fits-all monolithic functionality, and I want to stay in that spirit. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster