Re: [REVIEW] pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [REVIEW] pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYkVsC-WrEF7H7AZgC7uWr_5Oki8DkY5EjDQE7JS5PspA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [REVIEW] pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [REVIEW] pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> It also strikes me that anything >> that is based on augmenting the walsender/walreceiver protocol leaves >> anyone who is using WAL shipping out in the cold. I'm not clear from >> the comments you or Simon have made how important you think that use >> case still is. > > archive_timeout > 0 works just fine at generating files even when > quiet, or if it does not, it is a bug. > > So I don't understand your comments, please explain. If the standby has restore_command set but not primary_conninfo, then it will never make a direct connection to the master. So anything that's based on extending that protocol won't get used in that case. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: