>>> I don't much like that approach. The standby would need to be able to
>>> write the backup history file to the archive at the end of backup, and
>>> we'd have to reintroduce the code to fetch it from archive and, when
>>> streaming, from the master. At the moment, the archiver doesn't even run
>>> in the standby.
>>
>> Please teach the reason for "The standby would need to be able to write
>> the backup history file to the archive at the end of backup" .
>> (I'd like to know why "to only pg_xlog" is wrong .)
>
> If the backup history file is not archived, the postgres process won't
> find it when you try to restore from the base backup. The new server has
> no access to the standby's pg_xlog directory.
Thanks for the answer .
But , it sends the backup history file to pg_xlog of new server
(=backup server) when pg_basebackup is executed to the standby server
, and so I was going to create the patch of such logic .
I think it don't become the above-mentioned movement .
>> Because there is the opinion of "Cascade replication" , I don't want to
>> realize the function with the method which the standby requests to execute
>> it on the primary server .
>>
>> (The opinion of "Cascade replication"：
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-05/msg01150.php)
>
>I don't see how this helps.
Hypothesis:* Online base backup was realized with the method which the standby requests to execute it on the "primary
server".* "Cascade replication" was developed , and user is using it . (Ex. Primary -- Standby1 -- Standby2)
Situation:(1) Standby2 executes pg_basebackup .(2) Then, Standby2 accesses Standby1 .(3) But, it fails, because
Standby2'sprimary is Standby1, not Primary .
Result:* I don't want to realize the function with the method which the standby requests to execute it on the primary
server.
--------------------------------------------
Jun Ishizuka
NTT Software Corporation
TEL：045-317-7018
E-Mail: ishizuka.jun@po.ntts.co.jp
--------------------------------------------
