On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 18:45, Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >>> What if you start a concurrent process that begins streaming the WAL >>> segments just before you start the backup, and you stop it after having >>> stopped the backup. I would think that then, the local received files >>> would be complete. We would only need a program able to stream the WAL >>> segments and build WAL files from that… do you know about one? :) >> >> Sure, if you stream the backups "on the side", then you don't need >> this feature. This is for "very simple filesystem backups", without >> the need to set up streaming of archiving. > > What I meant is: why don't we provide an option to automate just that > behavior in pg_basebackup? It looks like a fork() then calling code you > already wrote.
Ah, I see. That's a good idea. However, it's not quite that simple. "just adding a fork()" doesn't work on all our platforms, and you need to deal with feedback and such between them as well. I think it's definitely something worth doing in the long run, but I think we should start with the simpler way. Oh, and this might be the use-case for integrating the streaming log code as well :-) But if we plan to do that, perhaps we should pick a different name for the binary? Or maybe just share code with another one later.. -- 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
