Hi,
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> We should probably have a separate discussion about what the least
>> committable unit would be for this patch. I wonder if it might be
>> sufficient to provide a facility for streaming WAL, plus a standalone
>> tool for receving it and storing it to a file. This might be designed
>> as an improvement on our existing concept of an archive; the advantage
>> would be that you could have all but perhaps the last few seconds of
>> WAL if the primary kicked the bucket, rather than being behind by up
>> to checkpoint_timeout. Allowing the WAL to be received directly by
>> PostgreSQL could be a future enhancement.
>> That's an interesting idea. That would essentially be another method to set up a WAL archive. I'm not sure it's
worthwhileon its own, but once we have the wal-sender infrastructure in place it should be easy to write such a tool.
>
> It most definitely would be useful on it's own. I have several
> installations where we'd love such a capability.
Yeah, this is my initial proposal for WAL receiving side. I think
that it's useful to provide such tool as a contrib (or pgfoundry)
program.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-10/msg01639.php
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
