Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup
Date
Msg-id 10771.1315577326@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 13:40, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
>> I'm not getting why we need the later one when we have this older one?

> One of them is for the simple case. It requires a single connection to
> the server, and it supports things like writing to tarfiles and
> compression.

> The other one is more compelx. It uses multiple connections (one for
> the base, one for the xlog), and as such doesn't support writing to
> files, only directories.

I'm with Dimitri on this one: let's not invent two different ways to do
the same thing.  Let's pick the better one, or meld them somehow, so
we only have one implementation to support going forward.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch to improve reliability of postgresql on linux nfs