On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 10:35 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The comment is saying "the second part of the file name" can be ignored,
> not the backup file itself.
Yes, I know. I'm asking if anyone minds me changing the docs to make it
clearer, not being confused by it myself. The issue was raised b
On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 10:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Just had questions from a replication user about why the .backup file is
> > described as "can ordinarily be ignored" and is considered optional by
> > recovery also even when pg_start_backup() was used
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Just had questions from a replication user about why the .backup file is
> described as "can ordinarily be ignored" and is considered optional by
> recovery also even when pg_start_backup() was used.
>
> If the file was created, it is necessary to use it in recovery, so
> shou
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just had questions from a replication user about why the .backup file is
> described as "can ordinarily be ignored" and is considered optional by
> recovery also even when pg_start_backup() was used.
What it says is that the second part of the filename can
