Re: Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Feike Steenbergen <feikesteenbergen(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command
Date: 2017-01-06 15:18:00
Message-ID: 7fce15dc-3fee-fc37-04ab-47233a9aa761@pgmasters.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 1/6/17 10:15 AM, Feike Steenbergen wrote:
>
> On 6 January 2017 at 15:42, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net
> <mailto:magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>> wrote:
>
>> Is there actual value in providing both %p and %f? It's not like it's
> really hard to do, but since the path will be specified on the same
> commandline, you could just put it in the command?
>
> As %f can be determined from %p I don't mind that much. However, having
> a single static --whatever command may be very useful for configuration
> management or backup tools that want to use static commands.
>
> The other reason why I'd offer both is to have some uniformity with
> archive_command, possibly allowing some reuse of code.

Agreed. Currently pgBackRest only accepts %p for archive_command
because it already knows where $PGDATA is. Of course I can change that,
but I think it makes sense to keep command options uniform anyway.

--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-01-06 15:18:21 Re: [HACKERS] Questionable tag usage
Previous Message Feike Steenbergen 2017-01-06 15:15:29 Re: Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command