| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_receivewal - couple of improvements |
| Date: | 2022-02-07 06:45:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20220207064501.l3kehvk4sxych7ix@jrouhaud |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 12:03:03PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
>
> What if someone doesn't use pg_receivewal as an archive location? The
> pg_receivewal can also be used for synchronous replication quorum
> right? In this situation, I don't mind if some of the WAL files are
> missing in pg_receivewal's target directory
Those two seem entirely incompatible, why would you have a synchronous
pg_receivewal that would ask for records removed by the primary, even if part
of synchronous quorum, apart from inadequate (and dangerous) configuration?
Also, in which scenario exactly would you be willing to pay a huge overhead to
make sure that all the WAL records are safely transferred to one or multiple
alternative location but at the same time don't mind if you're missing some WAL
segments?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-02-07 06:55:04 | Re: [BUG]Update Toast data failure in logical replication |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-02-07 06:33:03 | Re: pg_receivewal - couple of improvements |