Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery
Date: 2004-07-17 18:53:46
Message-ID: 16031.1090090426@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

[ ... some desultory reading of PITR patch ... ]

What is the point of having both archive_program and archive_dest as
GUC variables? Wouldn't it be simpler to fold them into one parameter,
viz

archive_command = 'cp %s /archivedir'

For that matter, do we need a separate archive_mode boolean? The one
thing I can positively guarantee about archive_dest (or archive_command)
is that we cannot come up with a useful default for it (no, /tmp isn't
good). Therefore it does not seem very reasonable to let the user turn
on archiving without having explicitly specified an archive destination.

I propose that we fold all three GUC flags into a single archive_command
string whose built-in default is an empty string, and you enable
archiving by setting it to something nonempty.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-07-17 19:08:43 Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery
Previous Message Joost Kraaijeveld 2004-07-17 18:50:48 Re: Logging PostgreSQL output

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-07-17 19:08:43 Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2004-07-17 16:55:40 Re: Documentation on new features?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-07-17 19:08:43 Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-07-17 16:36:10 Re: doc/src/sgml/ref/create_database.sgml had an extra <para> tag