Re: obsolete pg_receivexlog note? - Mailing list pgsql-docs

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: obsolete pg_receivexlog note?
Date
Msg-id 545A99AA.5020107@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to obsolete pg_receivexlog note?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: obsolete pg_receivexlog note?  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-docs
On 10/20/14 2:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The reference page for pg_receivexlog
> (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/app-pgreceivexlog.html) has
> this note:
>
> """
> When using pg_receivexlog instead of archive_command, the server will
> continue to recycle transaction log files even if the backups are not
> properly archived, since there is no command that fails. This can be
> worked around by having an archive_command that fails when the file has
> not been properly archived yet, for example:
>
> archive_command = 'sleep 5 && test -f /mnt/server/archivedir/%f'
> The initial timeout is necessary because pg_receivexlog works using
> asynchronous replication and can therefore be slightly behind the master.
> """
>
> ISTM that this should be replaced with something to the effect of, if
> you are using pg_receivexlog instead of archive_command, you had better
> use slots.

Here is a patch.



Attachment

pgsql-docs by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.4 recommendations for archive_command vs. replication slots
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: obsolete pg_receivexlog note?