Re: DeArchiver process - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: DeArchiver process
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY7VF+rBwTYxb4qd6p9Jcs7GghWx=cZQTZEUW1HXQamMQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to DeArchiver process  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: DeArchiver process
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> My solution is to create a new process called the DeArchiver. This
> will run restore_command in a tight loop until the number of files
> would exceed wal_keep_files, then sleep. Each time the DeArchiver
> executes restore_command it will set the return code and if rc=0 the
> new XLogRecPtr reached. If standby_mode = on it will continue to retry
> indefinitely.

Are you thinking of reusing the existing GUC wal_keep_segments (not
wal_keep_files), or creating a new one?  I'd suggest creating a new
one, so as to avoid having a GUC that does one thing on the master and
something quite different on the slave.

> Which do we prefer "DeArchiver", "Restore process", or "WALFileReceiver".

My personal preference would be restore process, since we already use
the name restore_command.

> Thoughts?

+1.  Great idea.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem
Next
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: DeArchiver process