| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Philipp Gramzow <phil(at)philphonic(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: incoorect restore_command |
| Date: | 2021-02-24 11:15:59 |
| Message-ID: | 3c8a08bb-3eaa-cdc6-08f9-3298342722c2@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On 2021/02/24 16:52, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 07:24:17AM +0100, Philipp Gramzow wrote:
>> I agree, using a proper extension would be more straightforward. I'm sure
>> that's the reason why someone changed our archive_command.
>
> Okay, let's do so in the docs then. Others may have comments to
> offer, so I'll first wait a bit before applying my suggestion from
> upthread.
I agree with this change.
But I have one question; why do those commands use different
archive directories? Isn't it better to use the same one?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitriy Kuzmin | 2021-02-24 13:16:57 | Re: Inaccuracy in wal_receiver_status_interval parameter description |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-02-24 07:52:25 | Re: incoorect restore_command |