| From: | Steve Singer <ssinger(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep at Oct 5 |
| Date: | 2010-10-07 11:46:32 |
| Message-ID: | 4CADB318.8000900@ca.afilias.info |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10-10-07 05:52 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> The problem is how much WAL is stored on (any) node. Currently that is
>> wal_keep_segments, which doesn't work very well, but I've seen no better
>> ideas that cover all important cases.
>
> What about allowing the master to read and send WAL from the archive?
>
> Regards,
Then you have to deal with telling the archive how long it needs to keep
WAL segments because the master might ask for them back. If the archive
is remote from the master then you have some extra network copying going
on. It would be better to let the slave being reconfigured to read the
missing WAL from the archive.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Wanner | 2010-10-07 11:48:49 | Re: Issues with Quorum Commit |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-10-07 11:34:40 | Re: todo point: plpgsql - scrollable cursors are supported |