On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 17:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 11:37 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>
> >>> One awkward omission in the new built-in standby mode, mainly used for
> >>> streaming replication, is that there is no easy way to delete old
> >>> archived files like you do with the %r parameter to restore_command.
> >>
> >> Would it be better to call this "archive_cleanup_command"? That might
> >> help people understand the need for and the use of this parameter.
> >
> > This is bikeshedding but fwiw I like Simon's suggestion.
>
> So, this thread is hanging out on our list of open items for 9.0. My
> personal opinion on it is that I don't really care much one way or the
> other. archive_cleanup_command does seem easier to understand, but
> restartpoint_command has the advantage of describing exactly when it
> gets run from a technical perspective, which might be a good thing,
> too. Since nobody's felt motivated to do anything about this for two
> and a half months and we've now been through two betas with it the way
> it is, I'm inclined to say we should just leave it alone. On the
> other hand, both of the people who voted in favor of changing it are
> committers, and if one of them feels like putting in the effort to
> change it, it won't bother me much, except that I feel it should get
> done RSN. But one way or the other we need to make a decision and get
> this off the list.
Yes, restartpoint_command is exactly correct, and I do understand it; I
just don't think anyone else will. If there's another use for a
restartpoint_command other than for clearing up an archive, then it
would be sufficient to destroy the name change idea.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
