On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2014 6:16 PM, "Fujii Masao" <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> > While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for
>> > pg_standby?
>>
>> -1 for removing it. There is still the case where I'd like to use
>> log-shipping
>> rather than replication. For example, it's the case where I need to
>> compress WAL files before streaming them via very thin network.
>> We can set up log-shipping using standby_mode and without using
>> pg_standby, but it keeps emitting the failure of restore_command while
>> while there is no WAL activity, and which is bothersome. So I still need
>> pg_standby for log-shipping.
>
> I didn't realize that part,
The log-shipping standby using standby_mode tries to execute the
restore_command to restore new WAL file but it fails and the message
meaning the failure is logged if there is no new WAL file. Then
the standby tries to execure the same restore_command after five
seconds. But it fails and the message is logged again. These happen
continuously while no new WAL file is appearing in the standby's
archival area.
> but maybe we should fix that instead of keeping
> pg_standby around?
Yes. Even if we do that, we should announce pg_standby will be
removed and wait for several releases before removing it?
> (BTW, you can use streaming with compression as well using ssl of course,
> but it won't get quite the same levels due to smaller block sizes. And there
> are certainly still reasons for file based standbys so we should definitely
> not remove that)
Yes.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao