| From: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alexey Kondratov <kondratov(dot)aleksey(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Supply restore_command to pg_rewind via CLI argument |
| Date: | 2021-09-14 14:05:02 |
| Message-ID: | B593FE3D-324A-4A9A-AEF8-9A70DCAB7C1A@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 14 сент. 2021 г., в 18:41, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> написал(а):
>
>>> Besides this patch looks good and is ready for committer IMV.
>
> A variant of this patch was originally objected against by Michael, and as this
> version is marked Ready for Committer I would like to hear his opinions on
> whether the new evidence changes anything.
I skimmed the thread for reasoning. --target-restore-command was rejected on the following grounds
> Do we actually need --target-restore-command at all? It seems to me
> that we have all we need with --restore-target-wal, and that's not
> really instinctive to pass down a command via another command..
Currently we know that --restore-target-wal is not enough if postgresql.conf does not reside within PGDATA.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-09-14 14:11:25 | Re: Physical replication from x86_64 to ARM64 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-09-14 14:01:08 | Re: Increase value of OUTER_VAR |