Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks)

On 6/12/13 10:55 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> But it's got to be pretty common to archive to a local
> path that happens to be a remote mount, or to a local directory whose
> contents are subsequently copied off by a batch job.  Making that work
> nicely with near-zero configuration would be a significant advance.

Doesn't that just move the problem to managing NFS or batch jobs?  Do we
want to encourage that?

I suspect that there are actually only about 5 or 6 common ways to do
archiving (say, local, NFS, scp, rsync, S3, ...).  There's no reason why
we can't fully specify and/or script what to do in each of these cases.