Re: Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command

On 1/6/17 8:49 AM, Feike Steenbergen wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
> <mailto:david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>> wrote:
>> For my part I still prefer an actual command to be executed so it will
> start/restart the archiver if it is not already running or died. This
> reduces the number of processes that I need to ensure are running.
>>
>> If the consensus is that a signal is better then I'll make that work.
> I will say this raises the bar on what is required to write a good
> archive command and we already know it is quite a difficult task.
>
> On 6 January 2017 at 14:37, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net
> <mailto:magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>> wrote:
>> I like the idea of a command as well, for flexibility. If you want a
> signal, you can write a trivial command that sends the signal... Maximum
> flexibility, as long as we don't create a lot of caveats for users.
>
> Agreed, I think it is also easier to understand the mechanism (instead
> of a signal), and would allow for some reuse of already existing scripts.
>
> If we do use a full command (vs a signal), I propose we do also offer
> the %p and %f placeholders for the command.

Agreed. It shouldn't be that hard and could be very useful. If nothing
else it will eliminate the need to configure path to the pg_receivexlog
queue in the archiver.

--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net