Re: BUG #15335: Documentation is wrong about archive_command andexisting files

On 8/18/18 8:09 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Phil Endecott
> <spam_from_pgsql_lists@chezphil.org
> <mailto:spam_from_pgsql_lists@chezphil.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Jeff,
> 
>     Jeff Janes wrote:
> 
>         The possibilities are endless, and an example cannot cover all
>         of them while still usefully serving as an example. There are
>         canned systems for handling this more thoroughly, and you should
>         look into using one of them.
> 
>     Do you believe that the docs should point this out?
> 
>     Currently there are about 18,000 words of what appears to be very
>     thorough documentation about implementing replication, yet they
>     do not refer the reader to tools like pgBackRest.  When I post
>     about the issues that I have had, the overwhelming view of the
>     mailing lists is that pgBackRest is essential - yet this important
>     advice is not conveyed to new users of this feature who are relying
>     on the official documentation.
> 
> 
> 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

But I don't think we ever reference the wiki from the core user
documentation.

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.

Regards,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net