On Saturday, March 29, 2014, Tom Lane <
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> But, it is hard to tell what the real solution is, because the doc doesn't
> explain why it should refuse (and fail) to overwrite an existing file. The
> only reason I can think of to make that recommendation is because it is
> easy to accidentally configure two clusters to attempt to archive to the
> same location, and having them overwrite each others files should be
> guarded against. If I am right, it seems like this reason should be added
> to the docs, so people know what they are defending against. And if I am
> wrong, it seems even more important that the (correct) reason is added to
> the docs.
If memory serves, that is the reason ... and I thought it *was* explained
somewhere in the docs.
You are right, and it has been there for a decade. I don't know how I missed that the last several times I read it. I remember clearly the paragraph below it, just not that one.
Sorry,
Jeff
