Dimitri Fontaine <dfonta...@hi-media.com> writes:
> Could we add yet another postmaster specialized child to handle the
> archive, which would be like a default archive_command implemented in
> core.
I think this fails the basic sanity check: do you need it to still work
when the master is dead. It's reasonable to ask the master to supply a
few gigs of very-recent WAL, but as soon as the word "archive" enters
the conversation, you should be thinking in terms of a different
machine. Or at least a design that easily scales to put the archive on
a different machine.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
