On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 09:46 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I thought the idea was just to show what a shell script might look like
>> --- we could say it does the same as a single-line copy, but then people
>> could improve it, or we could add a comment to show how people could
>> improve it.
>
> Why can't we provide the improved version to begin with, if we know it
> needs improvement? I think we don't really know what it should look
> like, do we?
+1.
>> > I think what we should do is write a wrapper program in C that covers
>> > all the bases, support all platforms, and supports a handful of the most
>> > commonly used copy methods (cp, scp, etc. + compression). Then everyone
>> > can just use that and doesn't have to figure all these things out from
>> > scratch every time.
>>
>> I doubt it would work because people like the flexibility of shell
>> scripts.
>
> Well, we thought that about the base backup, but now we have
> pg_basebackup, which supports two output methods that should cover most
> cases. If we could provide an archive command that has two or three
> methods, that could also cover most uses. Of course, in either case you
> are free to write your own script.
I would say the majority of people *don't* like the flexibility of
shellscripts. They want something simple to use. pg_receivexlog on 9.2
is going to help some of them (as a completement to pg_basebackup).
But also shipping something to use for archive_command that just
copies the files in a proper way would definitely help for usability.
As long as we keep the write-your-own-script-however-you-like method,
just like we did for pg_basebackup, doing this can only be an
improvement. And I don't see anybody suggesting we *remove* this
capability.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
