Re: [GENERAL] WAL logs multiplexing?

[Dmitry Panov <dmitry(at)tsu(dot)tula(dot)ru>]

On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 11:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dmitry Panov <dmitry(at)tsu(dot)tula(dot)ru> writes:
> > Yes, but if the server has crashed earlier the script won't be called
> > and if the filesystem can't be recovered the changes will be lost. My
> > point is the server should write into both (or more) files at the same
> > time.
> 
> As for that, I agree with the other person: a RAID array does that just
> fine, and with much higher performance than we could muster.
> 

BTW, I found something related in the TODO:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgtodo?pitr

I think both approaches have the right to exist, but I prefer my because
it looks more straightforward, it insures up-to-date recovery (no
delays) and it reduces the traffic (as the partial logs have to be
transferred in full by the proposed "archive_current_wal_command"). The
only drawback is performance.

Best regards,
-- 
Dmitry O Panov          | mailto:dmitry(at)tsu(dot)tula(dot)ru
Tula State University   | Fidonet: Dmitry Panov, 2:5022/5.13
Dept. of CS & NIT       | http://www.tsu.tula.ru/