From: | Benoit Lobréau <benoit(dot)lobreau(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: archive_command / pg_stat_archiver & documentation |
Date: | 2021-03-01 08:33:48 |
Message-ID: | CAPE8EZ4ka8QZsQ+eTvyprLycgjQMKX1ozF8s7jdF_hCt8zd9ag@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le lun. 1 mars 2021 à 08:36, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> a écrit :
> 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.
>
I wanted to add a warning that using pg_stat_archiver to monitor the good
health of the
archiver comes with a caveat in the view documentation itself. But couldn't
find a concise
way to do it. So I added a link.
If you think it's unnecessary, that's ok.
> For the second paragraph, I would recommend to move that to a
> different <para> to outline this special case, leading to the
> attached.
>
Good.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2021-03-01 08:39:13 | Re: A reloption for partitioned tables - parallel_workers |
Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-03-01 07:55:57 | Re: archive_command / pg_stat_archiver & documentation |