Re: confusing archive_command example

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > His complaint was that .../%f looks like ../%f; is that a valid
> > concern?
>
> Well, it does look like it, I'm just not seeing an easy fix that makes
> that better. I think the original suggestion was to turn it into a
> concrete example by writing something like /mnt/archive/%f.
>
> > I have reverted the change. Also, should we be using test !
> > -e instead of -f?
>
> No opinion.

Well -e tests for any type of file, while -f is only for regular files.
In practice, there should only be regular files in the archive
directory. But because we are always super-cautious, I changed it to
-e.

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