Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API
Date: 2017-02-26 08:56:38
Message-ID: CA+TgmobKwsArYvABa0LAOXOeoXgf+=ROCrhUihEmQT+X=3ioww@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> - pg_basebackup -R generates recovery.conf.auto.

Does anything cause that file to get read?

Wouldn't it be better to just append to postgresql.conf.auto?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-02-26 08:58:35 Re: Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-02-26 08:55:31 Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API