Re: Decreasing WAL size effects

Greg Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Sure, and that's why I didn't care when this got kicked out of the
> March CommitFest; was hoping a better one would show up.  But if 8.4
> isn't going out the door with the feature people really want, it would
> be nice to at least make the stopgap kludge more easily available.
+1
Sure I would rather have synchronous WAL shipping, but  if that is going
to be a while or synchronous would slow down my applicaton I  can get
comfortably close enough for my purposes with some highly compressible WALs.
>
> --
> * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
>