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.
regards, tom lane
