On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 23:41, Tom Lane wrote: > "J. R. Nield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The xlog code must allow us to force an advance to the next log file, > > and truncate the archived file when it's copied so as not to waste > > space. > > Uh, why? Why not just force a checkpoint and remember the exact > location of the checkpoint within the current log file?
If I do a backup with PITR and save it to tape, I need to be able to restore it even if my machine is destroyed in a fire, and all the logs since the end of a backup are destroyed. If we don't allow the user to force a log advance, how will he do this? I don't want to copy the log file, and then have the original be written to later, because it will become confusing as to which log file to use. Is the complexity really that big of a problem with this? > > When and if you roll back to a prior checkpoint, you'd want to start the > system running forward with a new xlog file, I think (compare what > pg_resetxlog does). But it doesn't follow that you MUST force an xlog > file boundary simply because you're taking a backup. > > > This complicates both the recovery logic and XLogInsert, and I'm trying > > to kill the "last" latent bug in that feature now. > > Indeed. How about keeping it simple, instead? > > regards, tom lane > -- J. R. Nield [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
