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

Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?
Date: 2013-01-15 07:51:36
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Mostly that it seems like a hack, and I suspect we may come up with a
>>> better way to do this in the future.
>> Do you have the specs of such better way? Would it be a problem to have
>> both pg_retainxlog and the new way?
> Well, I think in the long term we are likely to want the master to
> have some kind of ability to track the positions of its slaves, even
> when they are disconnected.  And, optionally, to retain the WAL that
> they need, again even when they are disconnected.  If such an ability
> materializes, this will be moot (even as I think that pg_standby is
> now largely moot, at least for new installations, now that we have
> standby_mode=on).

I agree. But just as we had pg_standby for quite a while before we got
standby_mode=on, I believe we should have pg_retainxlog (or something
like it) until we have something more integrated.

 Magnus Hagander

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Michael PaquierDate: 2013-01-15 09:16:59
Subject: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Previous:From: Jeevan ChalkeDate: 2013-01-15 06:54:28
Subject: Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group