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: 10771.1315577326@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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