|From:||Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>|
|To:||Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>|
|Cc:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alexey Kondratov <kondratov(dot)aleksey(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Supply restore_command to pg_rewind via CLI argument|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> 14 сент. 2021 г., в 18:41, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> написал(а):
>>> Besides this patch looks good and is ready for committer IMV.
> A variant of this patch was originally objected against by Michael, and as this
> version is marked Ready for Committer I would like to hear his opinions on
> whether the new evidence changes anything.
I skimmed the thread for reasoning. --target-restore-command was rejected on the following grounds
> Do we actually need --target-restore-command at all? It seems to me
> that we have all we need with --restore-target-wal, and that's not
> really instinctive to pass down a command via another command..
Currently we know that --restore-target-wal is not enough if postgresql.conf does not reside within PGDATA.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2021-09-14 14:11:25||Re: Physical replication from x86_64 to ARM64|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2021-09-14 14:01:08||Re: Increase value of OUTER_VAR|