Simon Riggs wrote: > User-selectable behaviour? OK. That's how we deal with fsync; I can > relate to that. That hadn't been part of my thinking because of the > importance I'd attached to the log files themselves, but I can go with > that, if that's what was meant. > > So, if we had a parameter called Wal_archive_policy that has 3 settings: > None = no archiving > Optimistic = archive, but if for some reason log space runs out then > make space by dropping the oldest archive logs > Strict = if log space runs out, stop further write transactions from > committing, by whatever means, even if this takes down dbms. > > That way, we've got something akin to transaction isolation level with > various levels of protection.
Yep, we will definately need something like that. Basically whenever the logs are being archived, you have to stop the database if you can't archive, no? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
