From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [RFC] What should we do for reliable WAL archiving? |
Date: | 2014-03-29 23:10:10 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1zGeZyQ7B4tDwMJ2Q78aWnxUs246wtNLe9=rHGccX4Dzg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Saturday, March 29, 2014, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com <javascript:;>> writes:
> > But, it is hard to tell what the real solution is, because the doc
> doesn't
> > explain why it should refuse (and fail) to overwrite an existing file.
> The
> > only reason I can think of to make that recommendation is because it is
> > easy to accidentally configure two clusters to attempt to archive to the
> > same location, and having them overwrite each others files should be
> > guarded against. If I am right, it seems like this reason should be
> added
> > to the docs, so people know what they are defending against. And if I am
> > wrong, it seems even more important that the (correct) reason is added to
> > the docs.
>
> If memory serves, that is the reason ... and I thought it *was* explained
> somewhere in the docs.
>
You are right, and it has been there for a decade. I don't know how I
missed that the last several times I read it. I remember clearly the
paragraph below it, just not that one.
Sorry,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2014-03-30 01:45:31 | Re: Securing "make check" (CVE-2014-0067) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-03-29 23:00:51 | Re: Useless "Replica Identity: NOTHING" noise from psql \d |