Re: WAL "low watermark" during base backup

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 13:40, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
>> I'm not getting why we need the later one when we have this older one?

> One of them is for the simple case. It requires a single connection to
> the server, and it supports things like writing to tarfiles and
> compression.

> The other one is more compelx. It uses multiple connections (one for
> the base, one for the xlog), and as such doesn't support writing to
> files, only directories.

I'm with Dimitri on this one: let's not invent two different ways to do
the same thing.  Let's pick the better one, or meld them somehow, so
we only have one implementation to support going forward.
        regards, tom lane