Re: archive_command vs. cp -i

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Martin Münstermann" <mmuenst(at)gmx(dot)de>, <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: archive_command vs. cp -i
Date: 2011-06-17 16:32:56
Message-ID: 4DFB3B68020000250003E7EA@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

"Martin Münstermann"<mmuenst(at)gmx(dot)de> wrote:

> while setting up a new linux postgresql server, I checked my
> archive_command. I noticed that the usual "cp -i f1 f2 <
> /dev/null" did NOT as expected: It did not overwrite the file
> (PASS), but it returned zero (FAIL, should return error).
>
> This could be reproduced on CentOS 5.6, RHEL4, and Ubuntu 10.04.

I've confirmed on SLES 10 and Ubuntu 9, too.

> Should the BACKUP-ARCHIVING-WAL doc be changed?

I think so. Given the wide variety of platforms on which the
example could silently cause data loss, I *really* don't think we
want that in our docs. Someone could blithely copy it into
production without testing and not know they had it wrong until a
backup failed to restore.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tim 2011-06-17 16:55:07 Re: archive_command vs. cp -i
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2011-06-17 13:55:22 Re: Postgres 8.3.10 Alter Table Waiting issue