On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > Wouldn't that encourage people to do local archiving, which is almost always > a bad idea?
Maybe, but refusing to improve the UI because people might then use the feature seems wrong-headed. > I'd rather improve the experience with pg_receivexlog or another way that > does remote archiving... Sure, remote archiving is great, and I'm glad you've been working on it. In general, I think that's a cleaner approach, but there are still enough people using archive_command that we can't throw them under the bus. > I guess archiving to a nfs mount or so isn't too bad, but archiving and > using a cronjob to get the files off is typically a great way to loose data, > and we really shouldn't encourage that by default, Imo. Well, I think what we're encouraging right now is for people to do it wrong. The proliferation of complex tools to manage this process suggests that it is not easy to manage without a complex tool. That's a problem. And we regularly have users who discover, under a variety of circumstances, that they've been doing it wrong. If there's a better solution than hard-wiring some smarts about local directories, I'm all ears - but making the simple case just work would still be better than doing nothing. Right now you have to be a rocket scientist no matter what configuration you're running. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
