From: | Feike Steenbergen <feikesteenbergen(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command |
Date: | 2017-01-06 13:49:37 |
Message-ID: | CAK_s-G30hogxXd6hNhJHQEBujx3xSMeNvgjb=imPdxK6fHWosg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
> For my part I still prefer an actual command to be executed so it will
start/restart the archiver if it is not already running or died. This
reduces the number of processes that I need to ensure are running.
>
> If the consensus is that a signal is better then I'll make that work. I
will say this raises the bar on what is required to write a good archive
command and we already know it is quite a difficult task.
On 6 January 2017 at 14:37, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> I like the idea of a command as well, for flexibility. If you want a
signal, you can write a trivial command that sends the signal... Maximum
flexibility, as long as we don't create a lot of caveats for users.
Agreed, I think it is also easier to understand the mechanism (instead of a
signal), and would allow for some reuse of already existing scripts.
If we do use a full command (vs a signal), I propose we do also offer the
%p and %f placeholders for the command.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Steele | 2017-01-06 13:55:35 | Re: Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2017-01-06 13:37:57 | Re: Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command |