On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 07:11:35PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:49:36 -0500,
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > As already discussed upthread, anyone who wants the path can get it from
> > `pwd` or local equivalent --- and that mechanism is robust (as lon
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:49:36 -0500,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As already discussed upthread, anyone who wants the path can get it from
> `pwd` or local equivalent --- and that mechanism is robust (as long as
> the directory move doesn't happen while any particular instance of t
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 15:02 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Code comments now discuss relative paths also.
Patch containing just the minor cleanup of docs and code comments.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Index: doc/src/sgml/backup.sgml
=
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 11:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't see why we should go out of our way to
> provide a bad substitute for pwd.
That argument is conclusive. Agreed.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
---(end of broadcast
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm pretty sure most people don't move live postmasters very frequently,
> plus it isn't clear to me why we should support the people that want
> that to do that, yet not the people who want the absolute-path option.
As already discussed upthread, anyone
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 11:10 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 13:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Looking back in the archives, I note that one of the arguments for
> >> making the server use relative paths everywhere was so that it'd be
> >>
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 13:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Looking back in the archives, I note that one of the arguments for
>> making the server use relative paths everywhere was so that it'd be
>> robust against things like DBAs moving directories that cont
On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 13:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 11:25:09AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Since 8.1 has done this all along and no one's actually complained about
> >>> it, I guess no one is using scripts that do "cd". I'm i
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 11:25:09AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Since 8.1 has done this all along and no one's actually complained about
>>> it, I guess no one is using scripts that do "cd". I'm inclined to go
>>> with Bernd's suggestion to change the doc
> > > Since 8.1 has done this all along and no one's actually
> complained
> > > about it, I guess no one is using scripts that do "cd". I'm
> > > inclined to go with Bernd's suggestion to change the docs
> to match
> > > the code, but does anyone have a contrary opinion?
>
> > In Unix you c
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 17:34 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 11:25:09AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Since 8.1 has done this all along and no one's actually complained
>> about
>> > it, I guess no one is using scripts that do "cd". I'm inclined to
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 17:34 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 11:25:09AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Since 8.1 has done this all along and no one's actually complained about
> > it, I guess no one is using scripts that do "cd". I'm inclined to go
> > with Bernd's sugges
Tom Lane wrote:
Bernd Helmle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Since 8.1 has done this all along and no one's actually complained about
it, I guess no one is using scripts that do "cd". I'm inclined to go
with Bernd's suggestion to change the docs to match the code, but does
anyone have a contrary opi
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 11:25:09AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Since 8.1 has done this all along and no one's actually complained about
> it, I guess no one is using scripts that do "cd". I'm inclined to go
> with Bernd's suggestion to change the docs to match the code, but does
> anyone have a contr
Bernd Helmle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Our WAL backup documentation says in some parts of it:
> ..."%p is replaced by the absolute path of the file to archive..." [1]
> I think this is (at least for 8.1 and upcoming 8.2 releases) wrong, since
> the archiver replaces this with pg_xlog/ only,
15 matches
Mail list logo
