[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum") writes:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 23:02:56 -0400 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Well, yes, but you do know about archive_timeout, right? No need to wait
>> 2 hours.
>
> Then you ship 16 MB binary stuff every 30 second or every minute but
> you only have some kbyte real data in the logfile. This must be taken
> into account, especially if you ship the logfile over the internet
> (means: no high-speed connection, maybe even pay-per-traffic) to the
> slave.
If you have that kind of scenario, then you have painted yourself into
a corner, and there isn't anything that can be done to extract you
from it.
Consider: If you have so much update traffic that it is too much to
replicate via WAL-copying, why should we expect that other mechanisms
*wouldn't* also overflow the connection?
If you haven't got enough network bandwidth to use this feature, then
nobody is requiring that you use it. It seems like a perfectly
reasonable prerequisite to say "this requires that you have enough
bandwidth."
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "ofni.secnanifxunil" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/
"There's nothing worse than having only one drunk head."
-- Zaphod Beeblebrox
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
