Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> Wny not? We are not going to improve unless we face our faults.
Oh, and I am backlogged on email, which is why I didn't mention it a
week ago when this thread was active (which I think was your point). :-)
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
