Hi, On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Magnus Hagander<mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> 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.
Yeah, this is my initial proposal for WAL receiving side. I think that it's useful to provide such tool as a contrib (or pgfoundry) program. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-10/msg01639.php 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
