Greetings, * Rhhh Lin (ruanlinehan@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > A colleague recently suggested that instead of implementing an 'archive_command' to push archivable WALs to a secondary location (for further backup to tape for example), we could instead persist the WAL files in their current location by setting the "wal_keep_segments" parameter to an extreme value e.g. 1000 and have the 'archive_command' do nothing. Michael's points are good and I wouldn't recommend using this archive command either, but what isn't clear to me is what you're actaully trying to solve by using such a method..? You haven't said anywhere what's wrong with archive_command (I know that there certainly are some things wrong with it, of course, but there are solutions to a number of those issues that isn't a hack like this ...). Thanks! Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
