On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 18:06 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Hmmm... We would actually prefer to get the WAL file at the > specified interval. We have software to ensure that the warm > standby instances are not getting stale, and that's pretty simple > with the current behavior. We don't have a bandwidth or storage Another thought: when you say it's "pretty simple", what do you do now? My monitoring scripts for this particular situation employ some pretty ugly code. I think if this did get changed, I would change my script to monitor the pg_current_xlog_location() of the primary database and compare to the last "restored log file..." entry in the standby database's log. I would think if the current location does not end in all zeros, you should expect a new WAL segment to be archived soon. Although this assumes that an idle database would not advance that location at all, and I'm still trying to understand Tom's proposal well enough to know whether that would be true or not. If this doesn't get changed, I think we should archive every archive_timeout seconds, rather than MAX(archive_timeout,checkpoint_timeout), which is less obvious. Regards, Jeff Davis ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
