From: "Peter Eisentraut"
I realize that there are about 128 different ways people set this up
(which is itself a problem), but it appears to me that a solution like
pg_copy only provides local copying, which implies the use of something
like NFS. Which may be OK, but then we'd need to get into
From: "Josh Berkus"
Yah? Does it work on Windows?
Yes. pg_copy is meant to be a replacement for cp/copy, not for the entire
archive_command script. It just opens, reads, writes, syncs, and closes the
file.
Regards
MauMau
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 8/11/14 6:23 PM, MauMau wrote:
>
>> I submitted a patch a patch for this a few months ago, which is pg_copy
>> listed in the current CF. The patch also addresses the problem that the
>> archived file can get lost after power failure because it is not flushed
>> to dis
On 8/11/14 6:23 PM, MauMau wrote:
> I submitted a patch a patch for this a few months ago, which is pg_copy
> listed in the current CF. The patch also addresses the problem that the
> archived file can get lost after power failure because it is not flushed
> to disk.The patch consists of a pro
On 08/11/2014 03:23 PM, MauMau wrote:
> From: "Kevin Grittner"
> The problem with the recommended command is that cp is not atomic.
> The file can be read before the contents are materialized, causing
> early end to recovery. I have seen it happen. The right way to do
> this is to copy to a differ
