>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 7:29 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevin Grittner wrote: >> I omitted the code I was originally considering to have it work against >> files "in place" rather than as a filter. It seemed much simpler this >> way, we didn't actually have a use case for the additional functionality, >> and it seemed safer as a filter. Thoughts? > > A special "non-filter" mode could save some IO and diskspace by not actually > writing all those zeros, but instead just seek to SizeOfWal-1 after writing > the > last valid byte, and writing one more zero. Of course, if you're gonna > compress the WAL anyway, there is no point... Right. And if you're not, why bother setting to zero? I couldn't invent a plausible scenario where we would want to do the update in place, and I'm afraid someone might be tempted to run it against "live" WAL files. So I decided it was best to let it lie unless someone else had a real- life situation where it was useful. Even then, I could write a bash script to do it using the filter a lot faster than I could modify the C code to safely deal with the files in-place, so I'm pretty skeptical. -Kevin
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
