Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Bruce Momjian 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"? > > Umm, you can't keep all segments around forever, can you? Surely you > have to recycle them sooner or later or you will run out of disk space. > > I guess you could move that responsibility to a user-written script, but > we haven't traditionally encouraged or supported people to mess with the > contents of pg_xlog. That would require some more thinking IMHO, not 9.0 > material. > > In practice, you can just set wal_keep_segments to some ridiculously > high value to achieve the same result.
Which is where my 'wal_keep_segments = -1' idea came from. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://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