On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 2:51 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
>>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Mostly that it seems like a hack, and I suspect we may come up with a
>>>> better way to do this in the future.
>>>
>>> Do you have the specs of such better way? Would it be a problem to have
>>> both pg_retainxlog and the new way?
>>
>> Well, I think in the long term we are likely to want the master to
>> have some kind of ability to track the positions of its slaves, even
>> when they are disconnected. And, optionally, to retain the WAL that
>> they need, again even when they are disconnected. If such an ability
>> materializes, this will be moot (even as I think that pg_standby is
>> now largely moot, at least for new installations, now that we have
>> standby_mode=on).
>
> I agree. But just as we had pg_standby for quite a while before we got
> standby_mode=on, I believe we should have pg_retainxlog (or something
> like it) until we have something more integrated.
Yep, not disagreeing.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company