Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> wrote:
> When the "being written to" segmnt copmletes moves to the final
> location, he'll get an extra whole "copy" of the file. But of the
> "move" can be an exec of his scritpt, the compressed/gzipped final
> result shouldn't be that bad. Certainly no worse then what he's
> currently getting with archive command ;-) And he's got the
> uncompressed incimental updates as they are happening.
Hmmm... As long as streaming replication doesn't send the "tail" of
an incomplete WAL segment file, the only thing we'd be missing on
the send to the central location is the compression. That's
typically reducing the size of the transmission by 50% to 75% (e.g.,
the gzipped "full" files are usually in the range of 4MB to 8MB).
At our WAN speeds, that is significant. I don't suppose that
streaming replication uses (or offers as an option) a compressed
stream?
-Kevin