Greetings,
* Rhhh Lin (ruanlinehan@hotmail.com) wrote:
> A colleague recently suggested that instead of implementing an 'archive_command' to push archivable WALs to a
secondarylocation (for further backup to tape for example), we could instead persist the WAL files in their current
locationby setting the "wal_keep_segments" parameter to an extreme value e.g. 1000 and have the 'archive_command' do
nothing.
Michael's points are good and I wouldn't recommend using this archive
command either, but what isn't clear to me is what you're actaully
trying to solve by using such a method..? You haven't said anywhere
what's wrong with archive_command (I know that there certainly are some
things wrong with it, of course, but there are solutions to a number of
those issues that isn't a hack like this ...).
Thanks!
Stephen
