Re: Stupid question about WAL archiving - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Erik Jones
Subject Re: Stupid question about WAL archiving
Date
Msg-id C967B0EA-6532-4E37-897D-3E1E430ACDD3@myemma.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Stupid question about WAL archiving  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Stupid question about WAL archiving
List pgsql-general
On Jan 18, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> Glyn Astill <glynastill@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>> I'll set up a cron job to remove them for now, however I'll have a
>> look at pg_standby
>
> Keep in mind that if you delete a log segment that's not yet been sent
> to the standby, you've hosed the standby --- you'll have to take a
> fresh
> base backup and reload the standby with it.  This is probably okay for
> disaster recovery, but you don't want your script creating the
> disaster
> all by itself.

Which is exactly why I pointed out that using pg_standby's -k switch
was the more reliable option.

Erik Jones

DBA | Emma®
erik@myemma.com
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)

Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com




pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Sullivan
Date:
Subject: Re: Replication Using Triggers
Next
From: Bricklen Anderson
Date:
Subject: Re: 7.4.6 to 8.2.5 - ' changes to $_$