Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > But however we do it, it will be significantly more complex than just > including the WAL. And I want to make sure we get *something* done in > time for 9.1, and then improve upon it. If we can get the improvement > into 9.1 that's great, but if not it will have to wait until 9.2 - and > I don't want to leave us without anything for 9.1.
+1. The only point I'm not clear on is the complexity, and I trust you to cut off at the right point here… meanwhile, I'm still asking for this little more until you say your plate's full :) > Right. I did put both the base backup and the wal streaming in the > same binary earlier, and the only shared code was the one to connect > to the db. So I split them apart again. This is the reason to put them > back together perhaps - or just have the ability for pg_basebackup to > fork()+exec() the wal streamer. That would be awesome. Then pg_streamrecv could somehow accept options that make it suitable for use as an archive command, connecting to your (still?) third-party daemon? At this point it'd be pg_walsender :) Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers