Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
> We're in Beta. You can't just go yanking stuff like that. Beta testers
> will be justifiably very annoyed.
>
> Please calm down.
>
> pg_standby is useful and needs to be correct. And its existence as a
> standard module is one of the things that has made me feel confident
> about recommending people to use the PITR stuff. I'll be very annoyed
> if it were to get pulled.
Since mentioned in the docs, I consider it at least the semi-official
tool for pgsql PITR handling. But as this discussion reveals, the api is
flawed, and will not allow guaranteed consistency (whatever pg_standby
tries) until fixed. While this may not be a bug of the restore_script
call, the pitr procedure in total is partially broken (in the sense that
it doesn't provide what most users expect in a secure way) and thus
needs to be fixed. It seems a fix can't be provided without extending
the api.
Regards,
Andreas
