Hi, On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > This design seems totally wrong to me. It's confusing the master's > pg_xlog directory with the archive. We should *not* use pg_xlog as > a long-term archive area; that's terrible from both a performance > and a reliability perspective. Performance because pg_xlog has to be > fairly high-speed storage, which conflicts with it needing to hold > a lot of stuff; and reliability because the entire point of all this > is to survive a master server crash, and you're probably not going to > have its pg_xlog anymore after that.
Yeah, I agree that pg_xlog is not a long-term archive area. So, in my design, the primary server tries to read the old XLOG file from not only pg_xlog but also an archive if available, and transfers it. > If slaves need to be able to get at past WAL, they should be getting > it from a separate archive server that is independent of the master DB. You assume that restore_command which retrieves the old XLOG file from a separate archive server is specified in the standby? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
