| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
| Date: | 2008-12-10 20:26:52 |
| Message-ID: | 1228940812.2754.23.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 20:04 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > They might care a lot about PITR
> > though, and that would be impossible if you lose the archive.
>
> Agreed, yes we need it as an option.
>
> > Do you see a cost to allowing all of the options listed by Fujii Masao?
>
> I haven't argued in favour of removing any options, so not sure what you
> mean. I have asked for an explanation of why certain features are needed
> so we can judge whether there is a simpler way of providing everything
> required. It may not exist.
I was trying to provide a use-case for maintaining the archive on both
primary and standby, i.e. option (1). My understanding was that you were
asking for such a use case with this question:
"So, why would you want to run with multiple archives?"
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-10 20:50:32 | Re: portability of "designated initializers" |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-12-10 20:17:22 | Re: portability of "designated initializers" |