Re: [HACKERS] Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Magnus Hagander
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog
Дата
Msg-id CABUevEy9f_Fx9ki_rfYNN-g4Qi85R9Hg0ZfQc-EUo4JiFkg5Cg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
 Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2017 15:00, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
> wrote:
>> Oh, I definitely think such a command should be able to take a placeholder
>> like %f telling which segment it has just processed. In fact, I'd consider
>> it one of the most important features of it :)
>
> I cannot think about any other meaningful variables, do you?
>
>
> Not offhand. But one thing that could go to the question of parameter name -
> what if we finish something that's not a segment. During a time line switch
> for example, we also get other files don't we? We probably want to trigger
> at least some command in that case - either with an argument or by a
> different parameter?

To be consistent with archive_command and restore_command I'd rather
not do that. The command called can decide by itself what to do by
looking at the shape of the argument string.

Not do which one -- trigger the command at all? archive_command triggers on non-segment files does it not?

If we want to trigger it with other files as well, then it shouldn't be called --end-segment-command, should it?

--

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: David Fetter
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] rename pg_log directory?
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] rename pg_log directory?