| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| 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 16:39:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob70+1L5-P-1kyeCbtevbJrsJt+0hFU+nP6AkMx583saw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> 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.
Go for it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-06-12 17:05:45 | Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-06-12 16:36:39 | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |