On Tuesday, August 11, 2009, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2009/8/11 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
>
> 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.
/Magnus
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
