On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:49 AM, John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7/16/2013 6:21 PM, David B Harris wrote: >> >> Actually though (if any PostgreSQL developers are paying attention), it >> might be useful to have a new WAL segment-managing behaviour. With the >> advent of the replication functionality (which is amazing stuff, thanks >> so much), I'd expect fewer and fewer installations to use WAL archiving. >> If WAL archiving is disabled, it might make sense for pg_start_backup() >> to postpone the deletion of WAL segments until pg_stop_backup(). > > > WAL archiving has another completely different use case, which is PITR, > Point In Time Recovery. Yep, and it is thought as safer to *always* keep a WAL archive working in parallel with replication. Just for safety. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
