Re: replication slots replicated to standbys?
| От | Craig Ringer |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: replication slots replicated to standbys? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMsr+YHqqjYrf_SGzoOYrF0ivz-7xyk=X7Hmut5J-hUMgXY-jA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: replication slots replicated to standbys? (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 22 August 2016 at 10:31, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Craig Ringer
<craig.ringer@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 21 Aug 2016 12:36 AM, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> Seems like another good idea to use pg_basebackup rather than manually
>> doing base backups; Magnus has been saying this for a while.
>
> The main time that's an issue is when you're rsync'ing to save bandwidth,
> using CoW volume snapshots, etc. pg_basebackup becomes totally impractical
> on big systems.
Yes, and that's not fun. Particularly when the backup takes so long
that WAL has already been recycled... Replication slots help here but
the partitions dedicated to pg_xlog have their limit as well.
We can and probably should allow XLogReader to invoke restore_command to fetch WAL, read it, and discard/recycle it again. This would greatly alleviate the pain of indefinite xlog retention.
It's a pain to do so while recovery.conf is its own separate magic though, not part of postgresql.conf.
I have no plans to work on this at this time.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: