Re: somewhat wrong archive_command example

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 09:11:01AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:15:30AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 09:46 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >> I thought the idea was just to show what a shell script might look like
> > >> --- we could say it does the same as a single-line copy, but then people
> > >> could improve it, or we could add a comment to show how people could
> > >> improve it.
> > >
> > > Why can't we provide the improved version to begin with, if we know it
> > > needs improvement? I think we don't really know what it should look
> > > like, do we?
> >
> > +1.
> >
> >
> > >> > I think what we should do is write a wrapper program in C that covers
> > >> > all the bases, support all platforms, and supports a handful of the most
> > >> > commonly used copy methods (cp, scp, etc. + compression). Then everyone
> > >> > can just use that and doesn't have to figure all these things out from
> > >> > scratch every time.
> > >>
> > >> I doubt it would work because people like the flexibility of shell
> > >> scripts.
> > >
> > > Well, we thought that about the base backup, but now we have
> > > pg_basebackup, which supports two output methods that should cover most
> > > cases. If we could provide an archive command that has two or three
> > > methods, that could also cover most uses. Of course, in either case you
> > > are free to write your own script.
> >
> > I would say the majority of people *don't* like the flexibility of
> > shellscripts. They want something simple to use. pg_receivexlog on 9.2
> > is going to help some of them (as a completement to pg_basebackup).
> > But also shipping something to use for archive_command that just
> > copies the files in a proper way would definitely help for usability.
> >
> > As long as we keep the write-your-own-script-however-you-like method,
> > just like we did for pg_basebackup, doing this can only be an
> > improvement. And I don't see anybody suggesting we *remove* this
> > capability.
>
> The original idea for the shell script was just to show people an
> example of what it might look like --- not to try to fix or change our
> recommended behavior. If there is no interest in showing an example, we
> can just close this thread.

Patch withdrawn.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +