On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> > wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> Mostly that it seems like a hack, and I suspect we may come up with a >>> better way to do this in the future. >> >> Do you have the specs of such better way? Would it be a problem to have >> both pg_retainxlog and the new way? > > Well, I think in the long term we are likely to want the master to > have some kind of ability to track the positions of its slaves, even > when they are disconnected. And, optionally, to retain the WAL that > they need, again even when they are disconnected. If such an ability > materializes, this will be moot (even as I think that pg_standby is > now largely moot, at least for new installations, now that we have > standby_mode=on).
I agree. But just as we had pg_standby for quite a while before we got standby_mode=on, I believe we should have pg_retainxlog (or something like it) until we have something more integrated. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
