On 1/6/17 8:49 AM, Feike Steenbergen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, David Steele <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
For my part I still prefer an actual command to be executed so it will
start/restart the archiver if it is not already running or died. This
reduces the number of processes that I need to ensure are running.
If the consensus is that a signal is better then I'll make that work.
I will say this raises the bar on what is required to write a good
archive command and we already know it is quite a difficult task.
On 6 January 2017 at 14:37, Magnus Hagander <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I like the idea of a command as well, for flexibility. If you want a
signal, you can write a trivial command that sends the signal... Maximum
flexibility, as long as we don't create a lot of caveats for users.
Agreed, I think it is also easier to understand the mechanism (instead
of a signal), and would allow for some reuse of already existing scripts.
If we do use a full command (vs a signal), I propose we do also offer
the %p and %f placeholders for the command.
Agreed. It shouldn't be that hard and could be very useful. If nothing
else it will eliminate the need to configure path to the pg_receivexlog
queue in the archiver.
--
-David
[email protected]
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
