Thread: Dynamically-sized WAL files

Dynamically-sized WAL files

From
Thom Brown
Date:
Hi all,

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

Thanks

Thom

Re: Dynamically-sized WAL files

From
Simon Riggs
Date:
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


Re: Dynamically-sized WAL files

From
Thom Brown
Date:
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