Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Do I really need to write a patch to say that, have you formally review
>> it, then change the wording to what you would have written in the first
>> place and then commit? Really?
> Yes. It's not a trivial change for me, you're much better at writing
> documentation than I am. And it's still not 100% clear to me what you're
> having in mind.
I didn't read this thread earlier, but now that I have, it seems to be
making a mountain out of a molehill. The original complaint seems to
have neglected the fact that existsTimeLineHistory() will pull history
files back from an archive. Therefore, you can only get into trouble
if you archive the WAL segment files for a timeline and fail to keep the
associated history file in the same place. It is entirely false that
you've got to keep the history files on the live server.
I've got no objection to clarifying the documentation's rather offhand
statement about this, but let's clarify it correctly.
regards, tom lane
