On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 10:08 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Robert Haas suggested a while ago that walreceiver could be a > stand-alone utility, not requiring postmaster at all. That would allow > you to set up streaming replication as another way to implement WAL > archiving. Looking at how the processes interact, there really isn't > much communication between walreceiver and the rest of the system, so > that sounds pretty attractive.
Just a small comment in this direction: what if the archive would be itself a postgres DB, and it would collect the WALs in some special place (together with some meta data, snapshots, etc), and then a slave could connect to it just like to any other master ? (except maybe it could specify which snapshot to to start with and possibly choosing between different archived WAL streams). Maybe it is completely stupid what I'm saying, but I see the archive as just another form of a postgres server, with the same protocol from the POV of a slave. While I don't have the clue to implement such a thing, I thought it might be interesting as an idea while discussing the walsender/receiver interface... Cheers, Csaba. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
