Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: >> You have to put the WAL files *somewhere* while you do the base backup. > > Agreed. That's why I like the idea of having a > max_wal_size/min_wal_time instead of keep_wal_segments or > checkpoint_segments. It's relatively simple for a DBA to know how much > disk space s/he has for WAL, total, before locking up the system.
What if that somewhere is as easy to setup as a PostgreSQL archive cluster: set a GUC a two, start the server, then in the production server have archive_mode = on and use some internal archive and restore commands, like 'pg_archivewal -h host -p port …'? It's only pushing the problem away, but in my mind the only reason why we're still talking about the problem is *not* the wal related settings but the current complexity of setting up a trustworthy archive server, and the number of external tools required in the operation (shell, scp, rsync, rm, etc…). Or is it just me? Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
