Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > Also, it won't actually work unless the server has replication > configured (wal_level!=minimal, max_wal_senders>0, and possibly some > setting for wal_keep_segments), which has been the main point of the > naming discussion thus far. Now, you know what would be REALLY cool? > Making this work without any special advance configuration. Like if > we somehow figured out a way to make max_wal_senders unnecessary, and > a way to change wal_level without bouncing the server, so that we > could temporarily boost the WAL level from minimal to archive if > someone's running a backup.
Not using max_wal_senders we're on our way, you "just" have to use the external walreceiver that Magnus the code for already. WAL level, I don't know that we have that already, but a big part of what this base backup tool is useful for is preparing a standby… so certainly you want to change that setup there. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
