Re: archive_keepalive_command

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, you said "It also strikes me that anything
> that is based on augmenting the walsender/walreceiver protocol leaves
> anyone who is using WAL shipping out in the cold.  I'm not clear from
> the comments you or Simon have made how important you think that use
> case still is."
>
> Not wanting to leave anyone out in the cold, I proposed something to
> enhance file based replication also.

Fair enough.

I am still of the opinion that we ought to commit some version of the
pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp patch. I accept that patch isn't going
to solve every problem, but I still think it's worth having. If one
of these other solutions comes along and turns out to work great,
that's fine, too; but I don't think any of them are so compelling that
we can credibly say that pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp is useless or
obsolete.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company