Re: BUG #15335: Documentation is wrong about archive_command and existing files

On 8/18/18 8:09 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Phil Endecott
> <spam_from_pgsql_lists(at)chezphil(dot)org
> <mailto:spam_from_pgsql_lists(at)chezphil(dot)org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> The possibilities are endless, and an example cannot cover all
> of them while still usefully serving as an example. There are
> canned systems for handling this more thoroughly, and you should
> look into using one of them.
>
> Do you believe that the docs should point this out?
>
> Currently there are about 18,000 words of what appears to be very
> thorough documentation about implementing replication, yet they
> do not refer the reader to tools like pgBackRest.  When I post
> about the issues that I have had, the overwhelming view of the
> mailing lists is that pgBackRest is essential - yet this important
> advice is not conveyed to new users of this feature who are relying
> on the official documentation.
>
>
> I think it might be a good idea to propose use of a canned solution, but
> I don't know how the community would feel about mentioning specific
> projects by name.  And if we didn't mention any by name, I think it
> would be pretty awkward to advise to give.
There is a wiki page that lists the major backup solutions:

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Binary_Replication_Tools

But I don't think we ever reference the wiki from the core user
documentation.

We could at least list all the things that a good archive command should
do and point out that the example in the docs doesn't do them and that
it is intended *only* as an example.

Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net