On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > the standby needs to > fall back to the archive if it falls behind so that the WAL files it > needs have already been recycled in the master.
Oh, so the master does not have to keep track of the state of the standbys. That`s a nice design. > If you're adventurous enough, it's actually possible to set an > archive_command that checks the status of the standby and returns > failure as long as the standby still needs the given WAL segment. That > way the primary doesn't recycle segments that are still needed by the > standby, and you can get away without restore_command in the standby. That would be a nice addition to pg_standby, like pg_standby --check-streaming-standby postgres:qwe...@10.0.0.1 --check-streaming-standby postgres:qwe...@10.0.0.2:5433 Greetings Marcin Mańk -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
