Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: archive_keepalive_command

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: archive_keepalive_command
Date: 2011-12-22 16:56:56
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, you said "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."
> Not wanting to leave anyone out in the cold, I proposed something to
> enhance file based replication also.

Fair enough.

I am still of the opinion that we ought to commit some version of the
pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp patch.  I accept that patch isn't going
to solve every problem, but I still think it's worth having.  If one
of these other solutions comes along and turns out to work great,
that's fine, too; but I don't think any of them are so compelling that
we can credibly say that pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp is useless or

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2011-12-22 16:59:10
Subject: Re: Wishlist: parameterizable types
Previous:From: Marti RaudseppDate: 2011-12-22 16:52:48
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable min/max optimization for bool_and/bool_or/every

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group