Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> But however we do it, it will be significantly more complex than just
> including the WAL. And I want to make sure we get *something* done in
> time for 9.1, and then improve upon it. If we can get the improvement
> into 9.1 that's great, but if not it will have to wait until 9.2 - and
> I don't want to leave us without anything for 9.1.
+1. The only point I'm not clear on is the complexity, and I trust you
to cut off at the right point here… meanwhile, I'm still asking for this
little more until you say your plate's full :)
> Right. I did put both the base backup and the wal streaming in the
> same binary earlier, and the only shared code was the one to connect
> to the db. So I split them apart again. This is the reason to put them
> back together perhaps - or just have the ability for pg_basebackup to
> fork()+exec() the wal streamer.
That would be awesome.
Then pg_streamrecv could somehow accept options that make it suitable
for use as an archive command, connecting to your (still?) third-party
daemon? At this point it'd be pg_walsender :)
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
