On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 09:56:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Frost <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > That all seems reasonable enough. Is it in the docs somewhere? I > > didn't find anything like this mentioned. If not, could we get it > > added as a note? > > Yeah, it hadn't occurred to anyone to specify this, because we just > thought of recovery_command as fetching from a static archive. > We clearly need to document the expected semantics better. > > I'm wondering whether we should discourage people from putting > side-effects into the recovery_command, period. You already found out > that recovery can ask for the same file more than once, but what if it > never asks for a particular file at all? I'm not sure that can happen, > just playing devil's advocate. I'd rather go the route of documenting the details of how (archive|recovery)_command is used; one of the huge benefits of our system over others is the flexibility you have in being able to run whatever command you want. I know Simon was working on some improvements to the PITR docs, but I don't know if that's been committed or not yet. -- Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Attachment:
pgpysP8CrsNZD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
