Re: Decreasing WAL size effects

Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> That pushes the problem of writing a little chunk of code that reads only
> the right amount of data and doesn't bother compressing the rest onto the
> person writing the archive command.  Seems to me that leads back towards
> wanting to bundle a contrib module with a good implementation of that with
> the software.  The whole tail clearing bit is in the same situation
> pg_standby was circa 8.2:  the software is available, and it works, but it
> seems kind of sketchy to those not familiar with the source of the code.
> Bundling it into the software as a contrib module just makes that problem
> go away for end-users.

The real reason not to put that functionality into core (or even
contrib) is that it's a stopgap kluge.  What the people who want this
functionality *really* want is continuous (streaming) log-shipping, not
WAL-segment-at-a-time shipping.  Putting functionality like that into
core is infinitely more interesting than putting band-aids on a
segmented approach.

            regards, tom lane