| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Venkata Balaji N <nag1010(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Borodin Vladimir <root(at)simply(dot)name>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Streaming replication and WAL archive interactions |
| Date: | 2015-05-13 13:29:49 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY+p5oowv1=Z44Zu14V70XKQZBkt+oEmwB+gAYYfDAV1Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> Our manual says that archive_command should refuse to overwrite an existing
> file. But to work-around the double-archival problem, where the same file is
> archived twice, it would be even better if it would simply return success if
> the file exists, *and has identical contents*. I don't know how to code that
> logic in a simple one-liner though.
This is why we really, really need that pg_copy command that was
proposed a while back.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-05-13 13:34:53 | Re: Why does contain_leaked_vars believe MinMaxExpr is safe? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-05-13 13:28:37 | Re: Auditing extension for PostgreSQL (Take 2) |