Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20700.1359048318@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3? (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >> I think it might be better to just document this as an example. I don't >> quite see the overhead of maintaining another tool justified. > Well, obviously I don't entirely agree ;) > Yes, it's a convenience command. Like pg_standby was. And like many > other commands that we maintain as part of *core*, such as createuser, > vacuumdb, etc. Those can all be done with an even *simpler* command > than the one you suggest above. So I don't see that as an argument why > it wouldn't be useful. We've discussed removing a lot of those tools, too. Not breaking backwards compatibility is probably the only reason they're still there. In the case at hand, I seem to recall from upthread that we expect this'd be obsolete in a release or two. If that's true then I think a para or two of documentation is a better idea than a tool we'll be essentially condemned to keep maintaining forever. > Also, the command you suggest above does not work on Windows. You can > probably write a .BAT file to do it for you, but I'm pretty sure it's > impossible to do it as an archive_command there. Perhaps we could whip up such a .BAT file and put it in the docs? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: