Re: Simplifying replication

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> You have to put the WAL files *somewhere* while you do the base backup.
>
> Agreed.  That's why I like the idea of having a
> max_wal_size/min_wal_time instead of keep_wal_segments or
> checkpoint_segments.  It's relatively simple for a DBA to know how much
> disk space s/he has for WAL, total, before locking up the system.

What if that somewhere is as easy to setup as a PostgreSQL archive
cluster: set a GUC a two, start the server, then in the production
server have archive_mode = on and use some internal archive and restore
commands, like 'pg_archivewal -h host -p port …'?

It's only pushing the problem away, but in my mind the only reason why
we're still talking about the problem is *not* the wal related settings
but the current complexity of setting up a trustworthy archive server,
and the number of external tools required in the operation (shell, scp,
rsync, rm, etc…).

Or is it just me?

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support