Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> I think it might be better to just document this as an example. I don't
>> quite see the overhead of maintaining another tool justified.
> Well, obviously I don't entirely agree ;)
> Yes, it's a convenience command. Like pg_standby was. And like many
> other commands that we maintain as part of *core*, such as createuser,
> vacuumdb, etc. Those can all be done with an even *simpler* command
> than the one you suggest above. So I don't see that as an argument why
> it wouldn't be useful.
We've discussed removing a lot of those tools, too. Not breaking
backwards compatibility is probably the only reason they're still there.
In the case at hand, I seem to recall from upthread that we expect
this'd be obsolete in a release or two. If that's true then I think
a para or two of documentation is a better idea than a tool we'll be
essentially condemned to keep maintaining forever.
> Also, the command you suggest above does not work on Windows. You can
> probably write a .BAT file to do it for you, but I'm pretty sure it's
> impossible to do it as an archive_command there.
Perhaps we could whip up such a .BAT file and put it in the docs?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
