From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pitr replica dies on startup |
Date: | 2007-09-01 01:56:50 |
Message-ID: | 5916.1188611810@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com> writes:
> That all seems reasonable enough. Is it in the docs somewhere? I
> didn't find anything like this mentioned. If not, could we get it
> added as a note?
Yeah, it hadn't occurred to anyone to specify this, because we just
thought of recovery_command as fetching from a static archive.
We clearly need to document the expected semantics better.
I'm wondering whether we should discourage people from putting
side-effects into the recovery_command, period. You already found out
that recovery can ask for the same file more than once, but what if it
never asks for a particular file at all? I'm not sure that can happen,
just playing devil's advocate.
Simon, did you see this thread? What do you think?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Frost | 2007-09-01 02:09:02 | Re: pitr replica dies on startup |
Previous Message | Jeff Frost | 2007-09-01 01:49:08 | Re: pitr replica dies on startup |