From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 9.4 recommendations for archive_command vs. replication slots
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:12:55 -0800
Message-ID: <54595D77.6020707@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <WM!c36ced4ba2a35c9ada4155e3dfc6d33619c7180af979b1179c9a8316177e16c01eba04e1d62dcddb56547d83ddb7ccc7!@asav-1.01.com>
References: <54454EB7.9010601@gmx.net>
<WM!8cacb5b04161cc548517e289b42e413c6772613a57b43f8937049cebb6eea300579ec63d180ccd198147a08b8d2b3ed6!@asav-3.01.com>
<54516E69.2060007@agliodbs.com>
<54591901.4080808@gmx.net>
<WM!b64e23284afece7f7b24b82368686c3aa95f961d47019f9cba644ab6e6e541e8cfd89d7cbb50ac19b49bace79c5a064d!@asav-2.01.com>
<54594742.7080707@agliodbs.com>
<WM!c36ced4ba2a35c9ada4155e3dfc6d33619c7180af979b1179c9a8316177e16c01eba04e1d62dcddb56547d83ddb7ccc7!@asav-1.01.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: 9.4 recommendations for archive_command vs. replication slots
In-Reply-To: <54595D77.6020707@agliodbs.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
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