On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Per document,
>>>
>>> --
>>> In fast failover, the server is brought up immediately. Any WAL files
>>> in the archive that have not yet been applied will be ignored, and all
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> Per document,
>>
>> --
>> In fast failover, the server is brought up immediately. Any WAL files
>> in the archive that have not yet been applied will be ignored, and all
>> transactions in those files are lost. To trigger a fa
> Per document,
>
> --
> In fast failover, the server is brought up immediately. Any WAL files
> in the archive that have not yet been applied will be ignored, and all
> transactions in those files are lost. To trigger a fast failover,
> create a trigger file and write the word fa
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03/02/2015 11:53 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2014 10:54 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
>
On 03/02/2015 11:53 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 11/10/2014 10:54 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
pg_standby is more configurable than the built-in standby_mode=on. You can
set the sleep ti
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 11/10/2014 10:54 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> wrote:
>>> pg_standby is more configurable than the built-in standby_mode=on. You can
>>> set the sleep time, for example, while standby_m
On 11/10/2014 10:54 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
>> pg_standby is more configurable than the built-in standby_mode=on. You can
>> set the sleep time, for example, while standby_mode=on uses a hard-coded
>> delay of 5 s. And pg_standby ha
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 11/10/2014 07:50 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/04/2014 01:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for
>>> pg_standby?
>>
>>
>> -1.
>>
>> A lot of peop
On 11/10/2014 07:50 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 11/04/2014 01:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for
pg_standby?
-1.
A lot of people, a lot of customers use log shipping for various
creative and business requirement setups.
On 11/04/2014 01:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for
pg_standby?
-1.
A lot of people, a lot of customers use log shipping for various
creative and business requirement setups.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.com
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2014 6:16 PM, "Fujii Masao" wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> > While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for
>> > pg_standby?
>>
>> -1 for removing it. There i
On Nov 10, 2014 6:16 PM, "Fujii Masao" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for
> > pg_standby?
>
> -1 for removing it. There is still the case where I'd like to use
log-shipping
> rather than r
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for
> pg_standby?
-1 for removing it. There is still the case where I'd like to use log-shipping
rather than replication. For example, it's the case where I need to
compr
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for
> pg_standby?
Was the original reason to keep it around anything other than
backwards compatibility? If not, then it was backwards compatibility
with a version that'
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for
> pg_standby?
+1 for this autumn cleanup.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
ht
While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for
pg_standby?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
16 matches
Mail list logo