Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup
Date: 2011-09-09 14:08:46
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 13:40, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>> I'm not getting why we need the later one when we have this older one?

> One of them is for the simple case. It requires a single connection to
> the server, and it supports things like writing to tarfiles and
> compression.

> The other one is more compelx. It uses multiple connections (one for
> the base, one for the xlog), and as such doesn't support writing to
> files, only directories.

I'm with Dimitri on this one: let's not invent two different ways to do
the same thing.  Let's pick the better one, or meld them somehow, so
we only have one implementation to support going forward.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-09-09 14:27:22
Subject: Re: Patch to improve reliability of postgresql on linux nfs
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-09-09 14:05:08
Subject: Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group