On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Mostly that it seems like a hack, and I suspect we may come up with a
>>> better way to do this in the future.
>> Do you have the specs of such better way? Would it be a problem to have
>> both pg_retainxlog and the new way?
> Well, I think in the long term we are likely to want the master to
> have some kind of ability to track the positions of its slaves, even
> when they are disconnected. And, optionally, to retain the WAL that
> they need, again even when they are disconnected. If such an ability
> materializes, this will be moot (even as I think that pg_standby is
> now largely moot, at least for new installations, now that we have
I agree. But just as we had pg_standby for quite a while before we got
standby_mode=on, I believe we should have pg_retainxlog (or something
like it) until we have something more integrated.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Michael Paquier||Date: 2013-01-15 09:16:59|
|Subject: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY|
|Previous:||From: Jeevan Chalke||Date: 2013-01-15 06:54:28|
|Subject: Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST|