Re: Re: Synch Rep: direct transfer of WAL file from the primary to the standby

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: Synch Rep: direct transfer of WAL file from the primary to the standby
Date: 2009-07-06 15:16:26
Message-ID: 14360.1246893386@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> In order for the primary server (ie. a normal backend) to read an archived file,
> restore_command needs to be specified in also postgresql.conf. In this case,
> how should we handle restore_command in recovery.conf?

I confess to not having paid much attention to this thread so far, but ...
what is the rationale for having such a capability at all? It seems to
me to be exposing implementation details that we do not need to expose,
as well as making assumptions that we shouldn't make (like there is
exactly one archive and the primary server has read access to it).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-07-06 15:18:15 Re: First CommitFest: July 15th
Previous Message David Fetter 2009-07-06 15:08:29 Re: First CommitFest: July 15th