Re: Dynamically-sized WAL files

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