Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hmmm. I seem to recall asking myself why xl_prev existed if it wasn't > used, but passed that by. Damn.
I couldn't believe it'd been overlooked this long, either. It's the sort of thing that you assume got done the first time :-( > PreAllocXLog was already a reason to have somebody prepare new xlog > files ahead of them being used. Surely the right solution here is to > have that agent prepare fresh/zeroed files prior to them being required. Uh, why? That doubles the amount of physical I/O required to maintain the WAL, and AFAICS it doesn't really add any safety that we can't get in a more intelligent fashion. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org