On Sat, 2007-11-24 at 17:06 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > [PATCHES] [Fwd: Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 8.3 archive_command], Simon Riggs
> > Applied.
>
> Getting positive feedback that your archive command has triggered is
> helpful for new users of this feature, and making it so that doesn't
> happen anymore is a step backwards for them as far as I'm concerned.
> Simon suggested he had a documentation update that was going to cover
> this. I'd like to see that and a mention of this change in the release
> notes before this is closed.
OK, I'll patch the docs, you patch the release notes, how's that?
My notes say I have these doc changes to submit for 8.3
- SQL Standard changes
- array references clean-up
- locking clarification
- PITR clarifications
> I already thought that the way the archive_command examples do everything
> as a command line instead of calling a script sets a bad example practice,
> and unless you call something you don't have options like "tweak your
> archive_command script to do some logging of its own". This change makes
> a much stronger case for saying outright the archive_command should call a
> separate script, so you can adjust things including logging there. That
> concept isn't even introduced by the current documentation. I know I was
> surprised the first time I echo'd something from the script and discovered
> it showed up in the server logs.
Being able to see what the command is seems like good practice to me, so
I don't agree that we should encourage people to use scripts in all
cases. But if you say that it isn't clear you can use scripts then that
should change, especially the additional messages aspect.
-- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
