"Kevin Grittner" <[email protected]> writes:
> Greg Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I thought at one point that the direction this was going toward was to
>> provide the size of the WAL file as a parameter you can use in the
>> archive_command:
> Hard to beat for performance. I thought there was some technical
> snag.
Yeah: the archiver process doesn't have that information available.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
