| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Streaming Replication and archiving |
| Date: | 2010-01-21 01:48:22 |
| Message-ID: | 4B57B266.2050209@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Huh? *Archived* segments aren't supposed to get deleted, at least not
> by any automatic Postgres action. It would be up to the DBA how long
> he wants to keep them around.
OK. The docs indicated that the segments needed to be kept around in
case the slave fell behind. If that's not the case (as it appears not
to be) then they can just be deleted by cron job, or the archive_command
on the master can be changed.
Presumably, however, if the slave falls sufficiently behind and there
are no archive logs, then the slave would not be able to resynch with
the master, no?
--Josh Berkus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-01-21 01:52:44 | Re: HS/SR and smart shutdown |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-01-21 01:44:43 | Re: HS/SR and smart shutdown |