Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> Well, I think the real hole is that turning archive_mode=on results in
> WAL never being deleted unless it's successfully archived.
Hm, good point. And at least in principle you could have SR setups
that don't care about having a backing WAL archive.
> But we might be able to handle that like this:
> wal_mode={standby|archive|crash} # or whatever
> wal_segments_always=<integer> # keep this many segments always, for
> SR - like current wal_keep_segments
> wal_segments_unarchived=<integer> # keep this many unarchived
> segments, -1 for infinite
> max_wal_senders=<integer> # same as now
> archive_command=<string> # same as now
> So we always retain wal_segments_always segments, but if we have
> trouble with archiving we'll retain up to wal_segments_archived.
And when that limit is reached, what happens? Panic shutdown?
Silently drop unarchived data? Neither one sounds very good.
I think either you want your WAL archived or you don't. "Archive
if it's convenient" doesn't sound like a useful operating mode.
So maybe we do indeed need to keep archive_mode as a separate toggle.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
