From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |
Date: | 2011-01-20 16:59:09 |
Message-ID: | m2r5c74ile.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Also, it won't actually work unless the server has replication
> configured (wal_level!=minimal, max_wal_senders>0, and possibly some
> setting for wal_keep_segments), which has been the main point of the
> naming discussion thus far. Now, you know what would be REALLY cool?
> Making this work without any special advance configuration. Like if
> we somehow figured out a way to make max_wal_senders unnecessary, and
> a way to change wal_level without bouncing the server, so that we
> could temporarily boost the WAL level from minimal to archive if
> someone's running a backup.
Not using max_wal_senders we're on our way, you "just" have to use the
external walreceiver that Magnus the code for already. WAL level, I
don't know that we have that already, but a big part of what this base
backup tool is useful for is preparing a standby… so certainly you want
to change that setup there.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-20 17:07:36 | Re: REVIEW: EXPLAIN and nfiltered |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-01-20 16:55:33 | Re: REVIEW: EXPLAIN and nfiltered |