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.
This whole thing can be considered to be a new feature. It's working as
designed. But people seem to be surprised about the current behavior (me
included), and we don't currently provide the behavior that most people
actually want. I think we should fix it for 8.4.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
