On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 09:54:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Decibel! <decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 08:31:10PM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote: > >> Postgres tries to reuse WAL files. Once the archive_command completes it > >> believes it is safe to reuse the old file without deleting it. That will do > >> nasty things if you've used ln as your archive command. > > > I thought that was specifically disabled when PITR was enabled? Or do we > > just do a rename rather than an unlink ond creating a new file? > > No. The only difference is we don't recycle the file until the > archive_command says it's done with it. > > The archive_command must actually physically copy the data someplace > else, and must not return success until it's sure the copy is good. > Perhaps the docs are not sufficiently clear on the point? Yeah... I think that's a big gotcha waiting to smack someone. I'd actually make the mention <strong> so that hopefully no one can miss it... or do we have an official method for putting warnings in the docs? "Because WAL segment files are renamed and not re-created from scratch, it is critical that the archive command actually copy files, not move or hard-link them." -- Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Attachment:
pgpvEe7F0V6WG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
