Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code
Date
Msg-id 1228940812.2754.23.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 20:04 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > They might care a lot about PITR
> > though, and that would be impossible if you lose the archive.
> 
> Agreed, yes we need it as an option.
> 
> > Do you see a cost to allowing all of the options listed by Fujii Masao?
> 
> I haven't argued in favour of removing any options, so not sure what you
> mean. I have asked for an explanation of why certain features are needed
> so we can judge whether there is a simpler way of providing everything
> required. It may not exist.

I was trying to provide a use-case for maintaining the archive on both
primary and standby, i.e. option (1). My understanding was that you were
asking for such a use case with this question:

"So, why would you want to run with multiple archives?"

Regards,Jeff Davis



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: portability of "designated initializers"
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: portability of "designated initializers"