pg.ddx.io pgsql-docs@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feed9.4 recommendations for archive_command vs. replication slots
5+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]
* 9.4 recommendations for archive_command vs. replication slots
@ 2014-10-20 18:04 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2014-10-20 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs
The 9.4 documentation for streaming replication still starts out by
making you set up archive_command and restore_command. Isn't that
obsolete now with replication slots? Shouldn't the first step be to set
up replication slots and then go from there?
If so, I think replication slots should feature more prominently in the
release notes.
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 9.4 recommendations for archive_command vs. replication slots
@ 2014-10-29 22:47 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
parent: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2014-10-29 22:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs
On 10/20/2014 11:04 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The 9.4 documentation for streaming replication still starts out by
> making you set up archive_command and restore_command. Isn't that
> obsolete now with replication slots? Shouldn't the first step be to set
> up replication slots and then go from there?
Well, bluntly, our replication docs should be taken out behind the barn
with an axe. They tell you more about the development history of
PostgreSQL than they tell you about how to replicate.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 9.4 recommendations for archive_command vs. replication slots
@ 2014-11-04 18:20 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
parent: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2014-11-04 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>; pgsql-docs
On 10/29/14 6:47 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/20/2014 11:04 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> The 9.4 documentation for streaming replication still starts out by
>> making you set up archive_command and restore_command. Isn't that
>> obsolete now with replication slots? Shouldn't the first step be to set
>> up replication slots and then go from there?
>
> Well, bluntly, our replication docs should be taken out behind the barn
> with an axe. They tell you more about the development history of
> PostgreSQL than they tell you about how to replicate.
That's true, but can we come to a consensus of what the preferred
advertised method should be?
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 9.4 recommendations for archive_command vs. replication slots
@ 2014-11-04 21:38 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
parent: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2014-11-04 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>; pgsql-docs
On 11/04/2014 10:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 10/29/14 6:47 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 10/20/2014 11:04 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> The 9.4 documentation for streaming replication still starts out by
>>> making you set up archive_command and restore_command. Isn't that
>>> obsolete now with replication slots? Shouldn't the first step be to set
>>> up replication slots and then go from there?
>>
>> Well, bluntly, our replication docs should be taken out behind the barn
>> with an axe. They tell you more about the development history of
>> PostgreSQL than they tell you about how to replicate.
>
> That's true, but can we come to a consensus of what the preferred
> advertised method should be?
We should do this tutorial-style, taking things through increasingly
complex replication setups:
1) simple two-server with pg_basebackup, no archiving, no slots
(i.e. "replication in 5 minutes")
2) replication with archiving
3) replication with replication slots
including "wal_keep_segments vs. replication slots"
4) synchronous replication
5) cascading replication
6) archiving-only replication
7) replication performance tuning
I could write this if I *don't* need to do it as a patch against the
existing docs.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: 9.4 recommendations for archive_command vs. replication slots
@ 2014-11-04 23:12 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
parent: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2014-11-04 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-docs
On 11/04/2014 01:38 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 11/04/2014 10:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 10/29/14 6:47 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2014 11:04 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>> The 9.4 documentation for streaming replication still starts out by
>>>> making you set up archive_command and restore_command. Isn't that
>>>> obsolete now with replication slots? Shouldn't the first step be to set
>>>> up replication slots and then go from there?
>>>
>>> Well, bluntly, our replication docs should be taken out behind the barn
>>> with an axe. They tell you more about the development history of
>>> PostgreSQL than they tell you about how to replicate.
>>
>> That's true, but can we come to a consensus of what the preferred
>> advertised method should be?
>
> We should do this tutorial-style, taking things through increasingly
> complex replication setups:
>
> 1) simple two-server with pg_basebackup, no archiving, no slots
> (i.e. "replication in 5 minutes")
> 2) replication with archiving
> 3) replication with replication slots
> including "wal_keep_segments vs. replication slots"
> 4) synchronous replication
> 5) cascading replication
> 6) archiving-only replication
> 7) replication performance tuning
>
> I could write this if I *don't* need to do it as a patch against the
> existing docs.
Also, specifically, having replication slots doesn't make having a
shared archive an obsolete approach. In many cases, if the replicas are
offline for a while you don't want to burden the master with helping
them catch up. So its an equal alternative to replication slots.
What's significantly less useful now is wal_keep_segments.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-11-04 23:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-10-20 18:04 9.4 recommendations for archive_command vs. replication slots Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2014-10-29 22:47 ` Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
2014-11-04 18:20 ` Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2014-11-04 21:38 ` Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
2014-11-04 23:12 ` Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox