Re: [REVIEW] pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [REVIEW] pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp
Date: 2011-12-12 14:24:41
Message-ID: CA+U5nMJ2cg+h5aBToftq3jr2z8gtLEDLT_7NVjEJjD=rzg1tRg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> It also strikes me that anything
> that is based on augmenting the walsender/walreceiver protocol leaves
> anyone who is using WAL shipping out in the cold.  I'm not clear from
> the comments you or Simon have made how important you think that use
> case still is.

archive_timeout > 0 works just fine at generating files even when
quiet, or if it does not, it is a bug.

So I don't understand your comments, please explain.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-12-12 14:47:34 Re: [REVIEW] pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-12-12 13:59:59 Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server