On Saturday, March 29, 2014, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> writes:
> > But, it is hard to tell what the real solution is, because the doc
> doesn't
> > explain why it should refuse (and fail) to overwrite an existing file.
>  The
> > only reason I can think of to make that recommendation is because it is
> > easy to accidentally configure two clusters to attempt to archive to the
> > same location, and having them overwrite each others files should be
> > guarded against.  If I am right, it seems like this reason should be
> added
> > to the docs, so people know what they are defending against.  And if I am
> > wrong, it seems even more important that the (correct) reason is added to
> > the docs.
> If memory serves, that is the reason ... and I thought it *was* explained
> somewhere in the docs.

You are right, and it has been there for a decade.  I don't know how I
missed that the last several times I read it.  I remember clearly the
paragraph below it, just not that one.



Reply via email to