On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Where are we on this?
It didn't make it into 9.2, and the patch hasn't been resubmitted for
9.3. It's still not really 100% clear to me what problem it lets us
solve that we can't solve otherwise. Maybe that is just a question of
adding do
Where are we on this?
---
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 01:52:35AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > archive_command and restore_command describe how to ship WAL files
> > to/from
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Does this patch have any user-visible effect? I thought it would make
>> pg_last_xact_replay_timestamp() advance, but it does not seem to. I
>> looked through the source a bit, and as best
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> Does this patch have any user-visible effect? I thought it would make
> pg_last_xact_replay_timestamp() advance, but it does not seem to. I
> looked through the source a bit, and as best I can tell this only sets
> some internal state which is
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> archive_command and restore_command describe how to ship WAL files
>> to/from an archive.
>>
>> When there is nothing to ship, we delay sending WAL files. When no WAL
>> files, the standby
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> archive_command and restore_command describe how to ship WAL files
> to/from an archive.
>
> When there is nothing to ship, we delay sending WAL files. When no WAL
> files, the standby has no information at all.
>
> To provide some form of keep
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Dec 12, you said "It also strikes me that anything
> that is based on augmenting the walsender/walreceiver protocol leaves
> anyone who is using WAL shipping out in the cold. I'm not clear from
> the comments you or Simon have made how impo
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> To provide some form of keepalive on quiet systems the
>> archive_keepalive_command provides a generic hook to implement
>> keepalives. This is implemented as a separate command to avoid
On 12/19/2011 08:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
If you want keepalives, why use log shipping rather than SR? Implementing a
really-high-latency method of passing protocol messages through the
archive seems like a complex solution to a non-problem
The problem being addressed is "how can people using
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> To provide some form of keepalive on quiet systems the
> archive_keepalive_command provides a generic hook to implement
> keepalives. This is implemented as a separate command to avoid storing
> keepalive messages in the archive, or at least a
archive_command and restore_command describe how to ship WAL files
to/from an archive.
When there is nothing to ship, we delay sending WAL files. When no WAL
files, the standby has no information at all.
To provide some form of keepalive on quiet systems the
archive_keepalive_command provides a g
11 matches
Mail list logo
