Re: [REVIEW] pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> It also strikes me that anything
>>> that is based on augmenting the walsender/walreceiver protocol leaves
>>> anyone who is using WAL shipping out in the cold.  I'm not clear from
>>> the comments you or Simon have made how important you think that use
>>> case still is.
>>
>> archive_timeout > 0 works just fine at generating files even when
>> quiet, or if it does not, it is a bug.
>>
>> So I don't understand your comments, please explain.
>
> If the standby has restore_command set but not primary_conninfo, then
> it will never make a direct connection to the master.  So anything
> that's based on extending that protocol won't get used in that case.

Got that, but now explain the reason for saying such people are "out
in the cold".

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services