On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 09:13 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > > I don't think we're going to get this to work reliably without extending
> > > the interface between the backend and restore_command. We've discussed
> > > many methods and there's always some nasty corner-case like that.
> >
> > > I think we should leave back-branches as is, and go with Simon's
> > > suggestion to add new "recovery_end_command" that's run when the
> > > recovery is finished. That's simpler and more reliable than any of the
> > > other approaches we've discussed, and might become handy for other
> > > purposes as well.
> >
> > > Does someone want to take a stab at writing a patch for that?
> >
> > Does this conclusion mean that changing pg_standby is no longer
> > on the table for 8.4? It certainly smells more like a new feature
> > than a bug fix.
>
> I think the big frustration is that this issue was first brought up
> March 25 and it took two months to resolve it, at which point we were in
> beta. I think many hoped a better idea would emerge but often that just
> doesn't happen and we have to do the best fix we can and move on.
I agree, very frustrating. Why do you bring it up again now?
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
