Re: [HACKERS] [streaming replication] 9.1.3 streaming replication bug ?

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Michael Nolan <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Michael Nolan <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:48:18 -0400
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] [streaming replication] 9.1.3
> streaming replication bug ?
> To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> We've talked about teaching the master to keep track of how far back
>> all of its known standbys are, and retaining WAL back to that specific
>> point, rather than the shotgun approach that is wal_keep_segments.
>> It's not exactly clear what the interface to that should look like,
>> though.
>>
>>
> Moreover, how does the database decide when to drop a known standby from
> the queue because it has failed or the DBA notify the database that a
> particular standby should no longer be included?

Probably the latter. So as Robert pointed out, we need neat API to register
and drop the standby. Though I have no good idea about this..

BTW, I have another idea about wal_keep_segments problem.
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTinN=xsPOoaXzVFSp1OkfMDAB1f_d-F91xjEZDV8@mail.gmail.com

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao