Greetings, * Rhhh Lin (ruanline...@hotmail.com) wrote: > A colleague recently suggested that instead of implementing an > 'archive_command' to push archivable WALs to a secondary location (for > further backup to tape for example), we could instead persist the WAL files > in their current location by setting the "wal_keep_segments" parameter to an > extreme value e.g. 1000 and have the 'archive_command' do nothing.
Michael's points are good and I wouldn't recommend using this archive command either, but what isn't clear to me is what you're actaully trying to solve by using such a method..? You haven't said anywhere what's wrong with archive_command (I know that there certainly are some things wrong with it, of course, but there are solutions to a number of those issues that isn't a hack like this ...). Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
