Re: somewhat wrong archive_command example

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 03:58, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 15:17, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> At
>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/continuous-archiving.html
>>>> we say
>>>>
>>>> """
>>>> Many people choose to use scripts to define their archive_command, so
>>>> that their postgresql.conf entry looks very simple:
>>>>
>>>> archive_command = 'local_backup_script.sh'
>>>> """
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me, however, that even a simple archive_command like that
>>>> ought to contain at least %p, right?
>>>
>>> Should always need both %p and %f, no?
>>
>> Yes unless the script extracts the file name from the path given as %p.
>
> Do we actually guarantee that this will wok?
>
> I know our current implementation does, but does the contract in the
> API actually guarantee that we will not change this implementation?

There is no such a guarantee. I agree with that %f should also be given
at the same time.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center