| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Brian Weaver <cmdrclueless(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marko Tiikkaja <pgmail(at)joh(dot)to>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: incorrect array offset in backend replication tar header |
| Date: | 2012-09-27 22:01:12 |
| Message-ID: | CABUevEwZaF7LjUwjjBXjAmuzBrhAj0b-t1ryQi2k7DNjDiNsfA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Brian Weaver <cmdrclueless(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Unless I misread the code, the tar format and streaming xlog are
> mutually exclusive. Considering my normal state of fatigue it's not
> unlikely. I don't want to have to set my wal_keep_segments
> artificially high just for the backup
Correct, you can't use both of those at the same time. That can
certainly be improved - but injecting a file into the tar from a
different process is far from easy. But one idea might be to just
stream the WAL into a *separate* tarfile in this case.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-09-27 22:03:04 | Re: Patch: incorrect array offset in backend replication tar header |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-09-27 20:58:23 | Re: ToDo: allow to get a number of processed rows by COPY statement [Review of Patch] |