| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks) |
| Date: | 2013-06-12 16:07:50 |
| Message-ID: | 51B89CD6.1030901@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/12/13 10:55 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> But it's got to be pretty common to archive to a local
> path that happens to be a remote mount, or to a local directory whose
> contents are subsequently copied off by a batch job. Making that work
> nicely with near-zero configuration would be a significant advance.
Doesn't that just move the problem to managing NFS or batch jobs? Do we
want to encourage that?
I suspect that there are actually only about 5 or 6 common ways to do
archiving (say, local, NFS, scp, rsync, S3, ...). There's no reason why
we can't fully specify and/or script what to do in each of these cases.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-06-12 16:16:59 | Re: transforms |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-06-12 15:49:12 | Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks) |