On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> As the README says that is not self-contained (for no fault of its own) and
>> one should typically set archive_command to guarantee zero WAL loss.
> Yes. Though you can combine it fine with wal_keep_segments if you
> think that's safe - but archive_command is push and this tool is pull,
> so if your backup server goes down for a while, pg_streamrecv will get
> a gap and fail. Whereas if you configure an archive_command, it will
> queue up the log on the master if it stops working, up to the point of
> shutting it down because of out-of-disk. Which you *want*, if you want
> to be really sure about the backups.
I was thinking I'ld like use pg_streamrecv to "make" my archive, and
the archive script on the master would just "verify" the archive has
that complete segment.
This get's you an archive synced as it's made (as long as streamrecv
is running), and my "verify"archive command would make sure that if
for some reason, the backup archive went "down", the wal segments
would be blocked on the master until it's up again and current.
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joachim Wieland||Date: 2010-12-30 12:31:47|
|Subject: Snapshot synchronization, again...|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2010-12-30 11:57:09|
|Subject: Re: Streaming replication as a separate permissions|