On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > >> Right now you have to be a rocket >> scientist no matter what configuration you're running. > > > This is quite a bit overblown. Assuming your needs are simple. Archiving is > at it is now, a relatively simple process to set up, even without something > like PITRTools. Where we run into trouble is when they aren't and that is > ok because we can't solve every problem. We can only provide tools for > others to solve their particular issue. > > What concerns me is we seem to be trying to make this "easy". It isn't > supposed to be easy. This is hard stuff. Smart people built it and it takes > a smart person to run it. When did it become a bad thing to be something > that smart people need to run? > > Yes, we need to make it reliable. We don't need to be the Nanny database.
More than easy, it should be obvious. Obvious doesn't mean easy, it just means what you have to do to get it right is clearly in front of you. When you give people the freedom of an "archive command", you also take away any guidance more restricting options give. I think the point here is that a default would guide people in how to make this work reliably, without having to rediscover it every time. A good, *obvious* (not easy) default. Even "cp blah to NFS mount" is obvious, while not easy (setting up an NFS through firewalls is never easy). So, having archive utilities in place of cp would ease the burden of administration, because it'd be based on collective knowledge. Some "pg_cp" (or more likely "pg_archive_wal") could check there's enough space, and whatever else collective knowledge decided is necessary. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
