Re: obsolete pg_receivexlog note?
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: obsolete pg_receivexlog note? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqS-JmMCcz5Tx5i4q6U8=3SKFJXdwDz=z=1hwsyD3E_F2Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: obsolete pg_receivexlog note? (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: obsolete pg_receivexlog note?
|
Список | pgsql-docs |
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > > On 10/20/14 2:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > The reference page for pg_receivexlog > > (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/app-pgreceivexlog.html) has > > this note: > > > > """ > > When using pg_receivexlog instead of archive_command, the server will > > continue to recycle transaction log files even if the backups are not > > properly archived, since there is no command that fails. This can be > > worked around by having an archive_command that fails when the file has > > not been properly archived yet, for example: > > > > archive_command = 'sleep 5 && test -f /mnt/server/archivedir/%f' > > The initial timeout is necessary because pg_receivexlog works using > > asynchronous replication and can therefore be slightly behind the master. > > """ > > > > ISTM that this should be replaced with something to the effect of, if > > you are using pg_receivexlog instead of archive_command, you had better > > use slots. > > Here is a patch. In this paragraph, is it worth mentioning as well that the tradeoff when using replication slots is to monitor the xlog partition to be sure it doesn't get full? -- Michael
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: