On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 18:06 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 5:47 PM, in message <695.1193438855@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > And after > > each archive_timeout, we test to see if we need to flush the current WAL > > segment out to the archive; which is determined by whether the write > > pointer is currently exactly at the start of a segment or not. > > Hmmm... We would actually prefer to get the WAL file at the > specified interval. We have software to ensure that the warm > standby instances are not getting stale, and that's pretty simple > with the current behavior. We don't have a bandwidth or storage > space issue because we zero out the unused portion of the WAL file > and gzip it -- an empty file's about 16 KB. Checking that the whole > system is healthy gets a lot more complicated if we stop sending > empty WAL files. > > Could this at least be a configurable option? > A good point. Keep in mind that even in the current system, your configuration is variable based on the checkpoint_timeout setting. Regards, Jeff Davis ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
