On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 10:18 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 09/06/10 10:21, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 18:30 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > >> I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their > >> principal function, not an implementation detail, IMNSHO. > >> > >> More importantly, we should include an example in the docs. I created > >> one the other day when this was actually bothering me a bit (see > >> <http://people.planetpostgresql.org/andrew/index.php?/archives/85-Keeping-a-hot-standby-log-archive-clean.html>). > >> That seemed to work ok, but maybe it's too long, and maybe people would > >> prefer a shell script to perl. > > > > I submitted a patch to make the command "pg_standby -a %r" > > > > That's a more portable solution, ISTM. > > > > I'll commit that and fix the docs. > > Huh, wait. There's no -a option in pg_standby, so I presume you're > planning to add that too. I don't like confusing pg_standby into this, > the docs are currently quite clear that if you want to use the built-in > standby mode, you can't use pg_standby, and this would muddy the waters.
It won't kill us to change that sentence. "pg_standby is only used now within the cleanup command" etc pg_standby already contains the exact logic we need here. Having two sets of code for the same thing isn't how we do things. > Maybe we could add a new pg_cleanuparchive binary, but we'll need some > discussion... Which will go nowhere, as we both already know. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
