On Tuesday, August 11, 2009, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > 2009/8/11 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > > We should probably have a separate discussion about what the least > committable unit would be for this patch. I wonder if it might be > sufficient to provide a facility for streaming WAL, plus a standalone > tool for receving it and storing it to a file. This might be designed > as an improvement on our existing concept of an archive; the advantage > would be that you could have all but perhaps the last few seconds of > WAL if the primary kicked the bucket, rather than being behind by up > to checkpoint_timeout. Allowing the WAL to be received directly by > PostgreSQL could be a future enhancement. > That's an interesting idea. That would essentially be another method to set > up a WAL archive. I'm not sure it's worthwhile on its own, but once we have > the wal-sender infrastructure in place it should be easy to write such a tool.
It most definitely would be useful on it's own. I have several installations where we'd love such a capability. /Magnus -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
