* Christoph Moench-Tegeder (cmt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > ## Stephen Frost (sfrost@xxxxxxxxxxx): > > > Worse, such scripts run the serious risk of losing WAL if a crash > > happens because nothing is ensuring that the WAL has been sync'd to disk > > before returning from the archive_command. > > That risk already exists when using rsync/scp/scp/... and should be > mitigated by filesystem settings on the receiving side. I was including rsync/scp/similar based tools, yes, just pointing out that such tools should be avoided when doing PG backups and WAL archiving. I have a hard time seeing "require filesystems be mounted as sync" to really be a viable solution, though I suppose it would be technically correct. Thanks! Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
