Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Florian G. Pflug
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation
Date
Msg-id 454B7E5D.5030704@phlo.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bug in WAL backup documentation  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> writes:
> Since 8.1 has done this all along and no one's actually complained about
> it, I guess no one is using scripts that do "cd".  I'm inclined to go
> with Bernd's suggestion to change the docs to match the code, but does
> anyone have a contrary opinion?

I think supplying the absolute path makes archiving scripts less
error-prone, which is a good time. So I'd vote for absolute paths.

greetings, Florian Pflug

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Martijn van Oosterhout
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation
Next
From: "Simon Riggs"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in WAL backup documentation