On 2014-11-02 14:33:32 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > This will nead some persistent state about the commands success - > > similar to the current archive status stuff. Given retries and > > everything it might end up to be easier to have a separate process. > > That is mostly what I meant with my thid option, the "background > process". But I guess we can do the actual queueing in the main > process of course. But yeah, it comes down to if we wan tto deal with > retries and such at all, or just leave that up to the external > command. We could for example say that if you specify -a, we just stop > doing the rename() in pg_receivexlog and *instead* do the archive > command, making it that commands responsibility to move the file "from > .partial". That might make things simpler.
I don't think that's good enough. Unless I miss something you really can't reliably deal with pg_receivelog being stopped at arbitrary moments that way. I also think that moving that much into the command will nail down implementation details that we really don't want to expose. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
