Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation
Date
Msg-id 1162744991.3587.916.camel@silverbirch.site
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation
List pgsql-patches
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 11:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 13:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Looking back in the archives, I note that one of the arguments for
> >> making the server use relative paths everywhere was so that it'd be
> >> robust against things like DBAs moving directories that contain live
> >> postmasters.  If we provide a %P option, or otherwise encourage people
> >> to write scripts that depend on the absolute path of $PGDATA, we'd lose
> >> some of this robustness.
>
> > I think I can fulfil Bernd, Florian and Martijn's wishes by supplying an
> > additional substitutable parameter %d which is replaced by the DataDir.
>
> This fails to respond to the concern that DataDir might be out-of-date.

I'm not suggesting that the option is necessary, but I am suggesting
offering it to those who consider it useful.

Let's allow it, but document the concern about its use in certain
circumstances.

I'm pretty sure most people don't move live postmasters very frequently,
plus it isn't clear to me why we should support the people that want
that to do that, yet not the people who want the absolute-path option.

--
  Simon Riggs
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP patch for tuple freezing issues
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation