Re: PostgreSQL recovery file syntax, ver 8.4 vs ver 9.5

"Telium Technical Support" <support(at)telium(dot)ca> writes:

> I actually need the log shipping so I can decide whether or not I want the
> standby to accept data from the master (In case of master corruption). I
> have clients on ver 8.4 and 9.5 so I'm trying to figure out if I can share
> config settings between clients.

Probably if your don't mind playing to the least version.

FYI that later versions such as 9.5 support a lag time as
recovery_min_apply_delay which might make unnecessary any external foo
to hold back WAL files till some ageing time.

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 4:44 PM
> To: Telium Technical Support <support(at)telium(dot)ca>;
> pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: PostgreSQL recovery file syntax, ver 8.4 vs ver 9.5
>
> On 2/20/18 15:44, Telium Technical Support wrote:
>> In postgreSQL version 8.4 it seems that you can place the db server
>> into warm standby mode with the following setting in recovery.conf
>>
>>     restore_command = 'pg_standby archiveDir %f %p %r'
>>
>> In postgreSQL version 9.5 I see the same option, but I also see what
>> appears to be an alternative syntax in recovery.conf:
>>
>>    standby_mode = (boolean)
>>    trigger_file = (string)
>>
>> So is this new syntax an alternative to the old syntax (both are
>> accepted by PGSQL)? Any benefit to the new syntax?
>>
>> Does the new syntax mean that I can use the restore_command setting as
>> well (to use my own copy command)?
>
> A lot has changed between 8.4 and 9.5. Hot standby, streaming replication,
> replication slots, and so on. You can continue to use pg_standby, but the
> new facilities are better in many ways.

--
Jerry Sievers
Postgres DBA/Development Consulting
e: postgres(dot)consulting(at)comcast(dot)net
p: 312.241.7800