On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > My solution is to create a new process called the DeArchiver. This > will run restore_command in a tight loop until the number of files > would exceed wal_keep_files, then sleep. Each time the DeArchiver > executes restore_command it will set the return code and if rc=0 the > new XLogRecPtr reached. If standby_mode = on it will continue to retry > indefinitely.
Are you thinking of reusing the existing GUC wal_keep_segments (not wal_keep_files), or creating a new one? I'd suggest creating a new one, so as to avoid having a GUC that does one thing on the master and something quite different on the slave. > Which do we prefer "DeArchiver", "Restore process", or "WALFileReceiver". My personal preference would be restore process, since we already use the name restore_command. > Thoughts? +1. Great idea. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
