Thread: Dynamically-sized WAL files

Hi all,

Is there a reason we require fixed-size WAL files?

Thanks

Thom

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.

--
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com

2009/11/10 Simon Riggs <simon@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