Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> If you aren't archiving then there's no guarantee that you'll still have >>> a continuous WAL series starting from the start of the backup. > >> I wasn't really thinking of this use case, but you could set >> wal_keep_segments "high enough". > > Ah. Okay, that seems like a workable approach, at least for people with > reasonably predictable WAL loads. We could certainly improve on it > later to make it more bulletproof, but it's usable now --- if we relax > the error checks.
Yeah, wal_keep_segments is wishy-woshy in general, not only with backups. > (wal_keep_segments can be changed without restarting, right?) It's PG_SIGHUP. >> Not a configuration I would recommend >> for high availability, but should be fine for setting up a streaming >> replication standby for testing etc. If we don't allow >> pg_start/stop_backup() with archive_mode=off and max_wal_senders>0, >> there's no way to bootstrap a streaming replication standby without >> archiving. > > Right. +1 for weakening the tests, then. Is there any use in looking > at wal_keep_segments as part of this test? I don't think so. There's no safe setting that would guarantee anything. We could check for wal_keep_segments>0, but any small number is the same practice. We don't insist on wal_keep_segments>0 to allow WAL streaming without archival in general, let's not treat taking the base backup differently. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers