Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Date
Msg-id 5245.1213062931@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Agreed.  I realize why we are not zeroing those bytes (for performance),
> but can't we have the archiver zero those bytes before calling the
> 'archive_command'?

The archiver doesn't know any more about where the end-of-data is than
the archive_command does.  Moreover, the archiver doesn't know whether
the archive_command cares.  I think the separate module is a fine
solution.

It should also be pointed out that the whole thing becomes uninteresting
if we get real-time log shipping implemented.  So I see absolutely no
point in spending time integrating pg_clearxlogtail now.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Next
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL