Re: [HACKERS] Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqRu+2psZNK7NE-h+5SiaGJtEO+gPxHNPp6cDJP_+av7AA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog
Re: [HACKERS] Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Feb 25, 2017 15:00, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> > wrote: >> Oh, I definitely think such a command should be able to take a placeholder >> like %f telling which segment it has just processed. In fact, I'd consider >> it one of the most important features of it :) > > I cannot think about any other meaningful variables, do you? > > > Not offhand. But one thing that could go to the question of parameter name - > what if we finish something that's not a segment. During a time line switch > for example, we also get other files don't we? We probably want to trigger > at least some command in that case - either with an argument or by a > different parameter? To be consistent with archive_command and restore_command I'd rather not do that. The command called can decide by itself what to do by looking at the shape of the argument string. -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: