| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Benoit Lobréau <benoit(dot)lobreau(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: archive_command / pg_stat_archiver & documentation |
| Date: | 2021-03-01 07:55:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_bO8eEX-USLtf0YtHHR8CF4+KznWG8ihJj8DQnMdQxxkg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 3:36 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:03:05AM +0100, Benoit Lobréau wrote:
> > Done here : https://commitfest.postgresql.org/32/3012/
>
> Documenting that properly for the archive command, as already done for
> restore_command, sounds good to me. I am not sure that there is much
> point in doing a cross-reference to the archiving section for one
> specific field of pg_stat_archiver.
Agreed.
> For the second paragraph, I would recommend to move that to a
> different <para> to outline this special case, leading to the
> attached.
+1
> What do you think?
LGTM!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Benoit Lobréau | 2021-03-01 08:33:48 | Re: archive_command / pg_stat_archiver & documentation |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2021-03-01 07:50:28 | Re: proposal: schema variables |