On ons, 2010-03-31 at 19:51 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Also, should we be using test ! -e instead of -f?
test -e is not portable.
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> That's an interesting point, do streaming replication connections
>
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> That's an interesting point, do streaming replication connections
>>> consume superuser_reserved_connections slots?
>>
>> Yes. Since SR connection is superuser connection, setting
>> supe
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>> ***
>> *** 829,834 if (!triggered)
>> --- 826,834
>>
>> Set the maximum number of concurrent connections from the standby
>> servers
>> (see for details).
>> +
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > His complaint was that .../%f looks like ../%f; is that a valid
> > concern?
>
> Well, it does look like it, I'm just not seeing an easy fix that makes
> that better. I think the original suggestion was to turn it into a
> concrete example by writing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> As far as "...", those are used to show only the important changes in
> the string, which I think is the right approach, but I did change the
> line so the dots are not right up against slashes:
>
> archive_command = 'test ! -f ... %f && cp %p
Bruce Momjian writes:
> His complaint was that .../%f looks like ../%f; is that a valid
> concern?
Well, it does look like it, I'm just not seeing an easy fix that makes
that better. I think the original suggestion was to turn it into a
concrete example by writing something like /mnt/archive/%f
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > What about:
> > archive_command = 'test ! -f ...%f && cp %p ...%f'
>
> Perhaps, though I still think this isn't an improvement over the
> original.
His complaint was that .../%f looks like ../%f; is that a valid
concern? I have reverted the chang
Bruce Momjian writes:
> What about:
> archive_command = 'test ! -f ...%f && cp %p ...%f'
Perhaps, though I still think this isn't an improvement over the
original.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > As far as "...", those are used to show only the important changes in
> > the string, which I think is the right approach, but I did change the
> > line so the dots are not right up against slashes:
> > archive_command = 'test ! -f ... %f && cp %p ..
Bruce Momjian writes:
> As far as "...", those are used to show only the important changes in
> the string, which I think is the right approach, but I did change the
> line so the dots are not right up against slashes:
> archive_command = 'test ! -f ... %f && cp %p ... %f'
This is *not* an
Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> Hi,
> On the page:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/continuous-archiving.html#BACKUP-ARCHIVING-WAL
>
> an example archive_command of:
> archive_command = 'cp -i %p /mnt/server/archivedir/%f
> is given. Then, a few lines later, an example archive comm
Fujii Masao wrote:
> ***
> *** 829,834 if (!triggered)
> --- 826,834
>
> Set the maximum number of concurrent connections from the standby
> servers
> (see for details).
> +Since those connections are for superusers,
> + should be
>
Hi,
In 9.0, some SQL commands can avoid WAL-logging only when
not only archive_mode is off but also max_wal_senders is
zero (new condition since 9.0). But I forgot modifying the
documents about this behavior enough :(
The attached patch adds the description about that new
condition for WAL-loggin
14 matches
Mail list logo
