From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2008-06-10 01:55:31 |
Message-ID: | 5245.1213062931@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Agreed. I realize why we are not zeroing those bytes (for performance),
> but can't we have the archiver zero those bytes before calling the
> 'archive_command'?
The archiver doesn't know any more about where the end-of-data is than
the archive_command does. Moreover, the archiver doesn't know whether
the archive_command cares. I think the separate module is a fine
solution.
It should also be pointed out that the whole thing becomes uninteresting
if we get real-time log shipping implemented. So I see absolutely no
point in spending time integrating pg_clearxlogtail now.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2008-06-10 02:48:33 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-10 01:50:58 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | 汪琦 | 2008-06-10 02:41:49 | a question about exec_simple_query() |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-10 01:50:58 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |