From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [RFC] What should we do for reliable WAL archiving? |
Date: | 2014-03-29 21:44:14 |
Message-ID: | 9616.1396129454@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> But, it is hard to tell what the real solution is, because the doc doesn't
> explain why it should refuse (and fail) to overwrite an existing file. The
> only reason I can think of to make that recommendation is because it is
> easy to accidentally configure two clusters to attempt to archive to the
> same location, and having them overwrite each others files should be
> guarded against. If I am right, it seems like this reason should be added
> to the docs, so people know what they are defending against. And if I am
> wrong, it seems even more important that the (correct) reason is added to
> the docs.
If memory serves, that is the reason ... and I thought it *was* explained
somewhere in the docs.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-03-29 22:10:00 | Re: psql \d+ and oid display |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-03-29 21:39:11 | Re: pgsql: Revert "Secure Unix-domain sockets of "make check" temporary clu |