On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 23:27, Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
>>> Well, I would guess that if you're streaming the WAL files in parallel >>> while the base backup is taken, then you're able to have it all without >>> archiving setup, and the server could still recycling them. >> >> Yes, this was mostly for the use-case of "getting a single tarfile >> that you can actually use to restore from without needing the log >> archive at all". > > It also allows for a simpler kick-start procedure for preparing a > standby, and allows to stop worrying too much about wal_keep_segments > and archive servers. > > When do the standby launch its walreceiver? It would be extra-nice for > the base backup tool to optionally continue streaming WALs until the > standby starts doing it itself, so that wal_keep_segments is really > deprecated. No idea how feasible that is, though. I think that's we're inventing a whole lot of complexity that may not be necessary at all. Let's do it the simple way and see how far we can get by with that one - we can always improve this for 9.2 -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
