On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> >> >> (wal_keep_segments can be changed without restarting, right?) >> > >> > Should we allow -1 to mean "keep all segments"? >> >> If that's what you want to do, use archive_mode. > > Uh, I assume that will require me to store the WAL files somewhere else, > rather than keeping them in /pg_xlog, which I thought was the goal. Am > I missing something?
Well, one of us is. Why would you want to retain all of your WAL logs in pg_xlog forever? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
