Re: Supply restore_command to pg_rewind via CLI argument

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
Date: 2021-09-14 14:05:02
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> 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.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
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