Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmmm. I seem to recall asking myself why xl_prev existed if it wasn't
> used, but passed that by. Damn.
I couldn't believe it'd been overlooked this long, either. It's the
sort of thing that you assume got done the first time :-(
> PreAllocXLog was already a reason to have somebody prepare new xlog
> files ahead of them being used. Surely the right solution here is to
> have that agent prepare fresh/zeroed files prior to them being required.
Uh, why? That doubles the amount of physical I/O required to maintain
the WAL, and AFAICS it doesn't really add any safety that we can't get
in a more intelligent fashion.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
