On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:26:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > An advantage to being able to stop the server is that you could have one > > server processing backups for multiple PostgreSQL clusters by going > > through them 1 (or more likely, 2, 4, etc) at a time, essentially > > providing N+1 capability. > > Why wouldn't you implement that by putting N postmasters onto the backup > server? It'd be far more efficient than the proposed patch, which by > aborting at random points is essentially guaranteeing a whole lot of > useless re-replay of WAL whenever you restart it.
My thought is that in many envoronments it would take much beefier hardware to support N postmasters running simultaneously than to cycle through them periodically bringing the backups up-to-date. -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
