On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 09:56:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com> writes:
> > That all seems reasonable enough. Is it in the docs somewhere? I
> > didn't find anything like this mentioned. If not, could we get it
> > added as a note?
> Yeah, it hadn't occurred to anyone to specify this, because we just
> thought of recovery_command as fetching from a static archive.
> We clearly need to document the expected semantics better.
> I'm wondering whether we should discourage people from putting
> side-effects into the recovery_command, period. You already found out
> that recovery can ask for the same file more than once, but what if it
> never asks for a particular file at all? I'm not sure that can happen,
> just playing devil's advocate.
I'd rather go the route of documenting the details of how
(archive|recovery)_command is used; one of the huge benefits of our
system over others is the flexibility you have in being able to run
whatever command you want.
I know Simon was working on some improvements to the PITR docs, but I
don't know if that's been committed or not yet.
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
In response to
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2007-09-02 17:45:14|
|Subject: Managing pid file conflicts for multiple PostgreSQL instances|
|Previous:||From: Decibel!||Date: 2007-09-02 00:04:28|
|Subject: Re: rename a constraint?|