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
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 |