Re: BUG #15335: Documentation is wrong about archive_command andexisting files
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #15335: Documentation is wrong about archive_command andexisting files |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20180820132447.GM3326@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #15335: Documentation is wrong about archive_command andexisting files (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #15335: Documentation is wrong about archive_command andexisting files
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Greetings, * David Steele (david@pgmasters.net) wrote: > On 8/18/18 8:09 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > > I think it might be a good idea to propose use of a canned solution, but > > I don't know how the community would feel about mentioning specific > > projects by name. And if we didn't mention any by name, I think it > > would be pretty awkward to advise to give. > There is a wiki page that lists the major backup solutions: > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Binary_Replication_Tools Interesting, though seems like there should be a distinction made between "backup" tools and "replication" tools, they're certainly different things. > But I don't think we ever reference the wiki from the core user > documentation. Very rarely. > We could at least list all the things that a good archive command should > do and point out that the example in the docs doesn't do them and that > it is intended *only* as an example. This sounds like a good idea to me, in general. I suggest we qualify the command shown further and say it's only provided as an illustration of how to set an archive_command and that it isn't an example. Perhaps we should even remove the shell-script bits and instead just have: archive_command = 'archivecmd /mnt/server/archivedir/%f %p' As long as we have something there that looks like valid shell script and which doesn't obviously fail, people are likely going to continue to use it. Thanks! Stephen
Вложения
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: