On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> the standby needs to
> fall back to the archive if it falls behind so that the WAL files it
> needs have already been recycled in the master.
Oh, so the master does not have to keep track of the state of the
standbys. That`s a nice design.
> If you're adventurous enough, it's actually possible to set an
> archive_command that checks the status of the standby and returns
> failure as long as the standby still needs the given WAL segment. That
> way the primary doesn't recycle segments that are still needed by the
> standby, and you can get away without restore_command in the standby.
That would be a nice addition to pg_standby, like
pg_standby --check-streaming-standby postgres:qwerty@10.0.0.1
--check-streaming-standby postgres:qwerty@10.0.0.2:5433
Greetings
Marcin Mańk
