On 2014-04-02 20:59:03 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2014-04-02 09:59:28 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > >> wrote: > >> > On 2014-04-01 16:45:46 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Michael Paquier > >> >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> > As of now, pg_basebackup creates an empty repository for pg_replslot/ > >> >> > in a base backup, forcing the user to recreate slots on other nodes of > >> >> > the cluster with pg_create_*_replication_slot, or copy pg_replslot > >> >> > from another node. This is not really user-friendly especially after a > >> >> > failover where a given slave may not have the replication slot > >> >> > information of the master that it is replacing. > >> > > >> > What exactly is your use case for copying the slots? > > > >> I had in mind users that want to keep around base backups that could > >> be used for recovery operations like PITR using a base backup and > >> archives. It does not apply directly to a live standby, as it would > >> mean that this standby would be defined to retain WAL for other slaves > >> connected to the master. > > > > I honestly can't follow why that implies copying the slots? > You simply do not need to recreate manually the slots on the new master.
That doesn't seem like a good justification. The new master won't necessarily have all the neccessary WAL available, no? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
