2009/11/10 Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com>: > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:39 +0000, Thom Brown wrote: > >> Is there a reason we require fixed-size WAL files? > > Currently we reuse the files, which is much easier with fixed size > files. > > It might have been interesting once to pass the size at log switch > through to the archiver as a parameter, though we didn't do that at the > time. Streaming is the way forwards, not file-by-file. >
I see! Yes, streaming is far more preferrable. :) Thanks Simon. Thom Brown -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
