Stephen Denne wrote:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> The simplest form of synchronous wal shipping would not even need
>> postgresql running on slave, just a small daemon which
>> reports when wal
>> blocks are a) received and b) synced to disk.
>
> While that does sound simple, I'd presume that most people would want the guarantee of the same version of postgresql
installedwherever the logs are ending up, with the log receiver speaking the same protocol version as the log sender. I
imaginethat would be most easily achieved through using something like the continuously restoring startup mode of
currentpostgresql.
Hmm, WAL version compatibility is an interesting question. Most minor
releases hasn't changed the WAL format, and it would be nice to allow
running different minor versions in the master and slave in those cases.
But it's certainly not unheard of to change the WAL format. Perhaps we
should introduce a WAL version number, similar to catalog version?
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
