Re: pg_archive_bypass

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL <Pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_archive_bypass
Date: 2010-06-14 15:51:26
Message-ID: AANLkTinoyBrepwUsR0Nv7Lu6K0v6Pv9LAXWlGQwAkTeA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
<dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> wrote:
> What about /usr/bin/true, or a simple archive where you cp in a given
> location (which could happen to be a remote server thanks to unix
> network file systems or windows shares), etc. It seems to me those are
> existing problem that we solve poorly: let each user face the same
> pitfalls (error management).
>

I would like to see the case where the archive is just a mounted
directory accessible through the filesystem be handled internally.
Ideally if I could just specify the archive location on both the
master and slave using the same parameter just containing a filesystem
path then I could have the same configuration on both machines except
for the actual parameter which decides whether they're a master or
slave. That would make me much more confident I've configured both
machines properly. All the nodes would have the same information and
they would be deciding for themselves whether to push or pull archives
based on whether they're the master or slave.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lacey Powers 2010-06-14 16:06:55 Re: Re: Command Prompt 8.4.4 PRMs compiled with debug/assert enabled
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-06-14 15:48:03 Re: warning message in standby