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
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 |