Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 10:34 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
>> On further reflection I think that initdb time is probably sufficient.
>> Do you think that would be a reasonable TODO ?
> I think you'd have to explain why this was needed. It was use
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 10:34 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> > I don't think that should even be a TODO item --- it seems far more
> > likely to provide a foot-gun than useful capability.
>
> On further reflection I think that initdb time is probably sufficient.
> Do you think that would
> I don't think that should even be a TODO item --- it seems far more
> likely to provide a foot-gun than useful capability.
On further reflection I think that initdb time is probably sufficient.
Do you think that would be a reasonable TODO ?
> Whether 16MB is still a reasonable default segment
> > > Perhaps we should move the successful archived message to DEBUG1
now,
> > > except for the first message after the archiver starts or when the
> > > archive_command changes, plus one message every 255 segments?
> > > That would reduce the log volume in the normal case without
endangering
>
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
Whether 16MB is still a reasonable default segment size is worth
questioning, though I don't think that increasing it is an open-and-shut
proposition.
I don't think it's a reasonable change to make right now. I think 16MB is
already too big for some peopl
>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:24 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In poking around the logs just now, I noticed one message I'd like
>> to squelch. Run against Milwaukee County's recent log files:
>
>> gre
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 12:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Just to clarify: I don't object to lowering "successfully archived"
> >> messages to DEBUG1, if the field consensus is that it's too chatty.
> >> What I di
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 18:16 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
>> Maybe it is time for making WAL segment size
>> changeable in the conf with a clean shutdown.
> I think its too late in the release cycle to fully consider all the
> implications of th
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 18:16 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> > Perhaps we should move the successful archived message to DEBUG1 now,
> > except for the first message after the archiver starts or when the
> > archive_command changes, plus one message every 255 segments?
> > That would red
"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Just to clarify: I don't object to lowering "successfully archived"
>> messages to DEBUG1, if the field consensus is that it's too chatty.
>> What I didn't like was the idea of logging some events but not other
>
> Perhaps we should move the successful archived message to DEBUG1 now,
> except for the first message after the archiver starts or when the
> archive_command changes, plus one message every 255 segments?
> That would reduce the log volume in the normal case without
endangering
> our ability to
>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 10:57 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 11:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> That would confuse people terribly, and it *would* endanger our ability
>>> to see what was
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 11:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That would confuse people terribly, and it *would* endanger our ability
>> to see what was happening, 254 times out of 255.
> That's my feeling too, just wanted to check it still made sense for
> y'all.
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 11:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Perhaps we should move the successful archived message to DEBUG1 now,
> > except for the first message after the archiver starts or when the
> > archive_command changes, plus one message every 255 segme
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps we should move the successful archived message to DEBUG1 now,
> except for the first message after the archiver starts or when the
> archive_command changes, plus one message every 255 segments? That would
> reduce the log volume in the normal case
>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 8:49 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Perhaps we should move the successful archived message to DEBUG1 now,
> except for the first message after the archiver starts or when the
> archive_command changes, plus one message ev
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:45 +0100, Rudolf van der Leeden wrote:
> In v8.2.4 we are currently switching archiving on/off on the fly by
> just inserting an archiving command.
> Now we have got a separate option for handling the on/off state.
> That's ok.
> But the note "change requires restart"
Hi,
I just installed v8.3beta3 and discovered that the way WAL archiving
is handled has changed.
From postgresql.conf:
#archive_mode = off # allows archiving to be done
(change requires restart)
#archive_command = '' # command to use to archive a logfile
segment
18 matches
Mail list logo
