Re: obsolete pg_receivexlog note?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: obsolete pg_receivexlog note?
Date: 2014-11-05 21:42:02
Message-ID: 545A99AA.5020107@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On 10/20/14 2:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The reference page for pg_receivexlog
> (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/app-pgreceivexlog.html) has
> this note:
>
> """
> When using pg_receivexlog instead of archive_command, the server will
> continue to recycle transaction log files even if the backups are not
> properly archived, since there is no command that fails. This can be
> worked around by having an archive_command that fails when the file has
> not been properly archived yet, for example:
>
> archive_command = 'sleep 5 && test -f /mnt/server/archivedir/%f'
> The initial timeout is necessary because pg_receivexlog works using
> asynchronous replication and can therefore be slightly behind the master.
> """
>
> ISTM that this should be replaced with something to the effect of, if
> you are using pg_receivexlog instead of archive_command, you had better
> use slots.

Here is a patch.

Attachment Content-Type Size
pg-receivexlog-notes.patch application/x-patch 1.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2014-11-05 23:54:57 Re: obsolete pg_receivexlog note?
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2014-11-04 23:12:55 Re: 9.4 recommendations for archive_command vs. replication slots