Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevExjd0LVupyFbvH_d2V2NBz1Q8wBwMErtb6dPtimR6qJuA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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. Not really sure there is such an expectation - any more than there was such an expectation when we initially put pg_standby in there. It would be *possible* to do it, certainly. But it's not like we have an actual plan. And AFAIK the stuff that was discussed upthread was a simplified version of it - not the full flexibility. That said, it's certainly a point that we'd have to maintain it. But I don't see why we'd have to maintain it beyond the point where we included the same functionality in core, if we did. >> 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? That would probably work, yes. --Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: