Re: [HACKERS] Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Feike Steenbergen
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command
Date
Msg-id CAK_s-G3z=2X80w7h9JYdRZm2xA=ZkrN82HdGjc+d9zQMbAZvOQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 6 January 2017 at 13:50, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> I think we're better off clearly documenting that we don't care about it. And basically let the external command be responsible for that part.

> So for example, your typical backup manager would listen to this signal or whatever to react quickly. But it would *also* have some sort of fallback. For example, whenever it's triggered it also checks if there are any previous segments it missed (this would also cover the startup sequence).

For me this works fine. I just want to ensure that if there is any work to be done, my backup manager will do the work quickly. My implementation might be very simply a process that checks every n seconds or when signalled.

> Since we never actually remove anything (unlike archive_command which has the integration with wal segment rotation), I think this can be done perfectly safe.
>
> Looking at the usecases where you have been doing it, are there any where this would not work?

This would work for all usecases I've come across.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6
Next
From: Ashutosh Sharma
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Add pgstathashindex() to get hash index table statistics.