| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: remove pg_standby? |
| Date: | 2014-11-10 18:48:30 |
| Message-ID: | 5461087E.6090003@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/10/2014 07:50 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 11/04/2014 01:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>
>> While we're talking about removing old things, is there any use left for
>> pg_standby?
>
> -1.
>
> A lot of people, a lot of customers use log shipping for various
> creative and business requirement setups.
Yes, but do they use pg_standby to implement it? If they do, why?
pg_standby is more configurable than the built-in standby_mode=on. You
can set the sleep time, for example, while standby_mode=on uses a
hard-coded delay of 5 s. And pg_standby has a configurable maximum wait
time. And as Fujii pointed out, the built-in system will print an
annoying message to the log every time it attempts to restore a file.
Nevertheless, 99% of users would probably be happy with the built-in thing.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-10 18:52:21 | Re: Proposal: Log inability to lock pages during vacuum |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-11-10 18:45:26 | Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches) |