Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:43:37PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian escribió:
>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 02:01:54PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:49:40PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>>>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:11:53PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think would be the right thing to do with it at this
>>>>>>> point?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, there should probably be a tar files with a README. What
>>>>>> about adding this to /contrib?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would be happy to add it to contrib if people want it there.
>>>>> There was some discussion of that when I wrote it, but then there
>>>>> was a feeling that it would be uninteresting once people had
>>>>> streaming replication. I'm skeptical that people will ever lose
>>>>> interest in archiving WAL files, because of the not-uncommon need to
>>>>> keep archival backups or restore to a "point in time" to recover
>>>>> from a mangled table. As long as those needs are there, I suspect
>>>>> that people will want to compress WAL files, including making
>>>>> partially-filled files smaller.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. Please move forward on the contrib idea.
>>>
>>> Kevin, did this get accomplished?
>>
>> Just to be clear, what we're proposing adding to contrib is
>> clearxlogtail, not pglesslog, right?
>
> I was not clear on exactly what Kevin was going to add. Kevin?
I was talking about pg_clearxlogtail. It is less fragile than
pglesslog because it doesn't look below the level of the page
structure -- it doesn't care about WAL record types at all. It
never needed one line of source code change until 9.3. Peter
Eisentraut was recently asking me questions about it and pointed
out that "It fails to build with 9.3devel, because of the change to
uint64 for WAL addressing."
Peter, do you have a version that works with 9.3?
Given that we're past the start of the last CF, do we still want to
consider including it? If you tilt your head at just the right
angle, I guess it could look like a bug fix -- but it is a stretch.
-Kevin