Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Date: 2008-06-10 01:55:31
Message-ID: 5245.1213062931@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Agreed. I realize why we are not zeroing those bytes (for performance),
> but can't we have the archiver zero those bytes before calling the
> 'archive_command'?

The archiver doesn't know any more about where the end-of-data is than
the archive_command does. Moreover, the archiver doesn't know whether
the archive_command cares. I think the separate module is a fine
solution.

It should also be pointed out that the whole thing becomes uninteresting
if we get real-time log shipping implemented. So I see absolutely no
point in spending time integrating pg_clearxlogtail now.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2008-06-10 02:48:33 Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-06-10 01:50:58 Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message 汪琦 2008-06-10 02:41:49 a question about exec_simple_query()
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-06-10 01:50:58 Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL