>Bruce Momjian > 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?
That certainly was my initial feeling, though I believe it is possible to accommodate both viewpoints. I would not want to have only the alternative viewpoint, I must confess. Best Regards, Simon Riggs ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
