Re: pg_receivelog completion command

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_receivelog completion command
Date: 2014-11-02 13:42:40
Message-ID: 20141102134240.GG28295@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-11-02 14:33:32 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > This will nead some persistent state about the commands success -
> > similar to the current archive status stuff. Given retries and
> > everything it might end up to be easier to have a separate process.
>
> That is mostly what I meant with my thid option, the "background
> process". But I guess we can do the actual queueing in the main
> process of course. But yeah, it comes down to if we wan tto deal with
> retries and such at all, or just leave that up to the external
> command. We could for example say that if you specify -a, we just stop
> doing the rename() in pg_receivexlog and *instead* do the archive
> command, making it that commands responsibility to move the file "from
> .partial". That might make things simpler.

I don't think that's good enough. Unless I miss something you really
can't reliably deal with pg_receivelog being stopped at arbitrary
moments that way. I also think that moving that much into the command
will nail down implementation details that we really don't want to
expose.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2014-11-02 15:01:46 Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2014-11-02 13:33:32 Re: pg_receivelog completion command