Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1FD632878 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:51:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 49146-03 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:51:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from momjian.us (momjian.us [70.90.9.53]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08C26326D6 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:51:14 -0300 (ADT) Received: (from bruce@localhost) by momjian.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) id o2VNpFd25456; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:51:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <201003312351.o2VNpFd25456@momjian.us> Subject: Re: confusing archive_command example In-Reply-To: <937.1270079209@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Tom Lane Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:51:14 -0400 (EDT) CC: Josh Kupershmidt , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL124 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.599 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201003/28 X-Sequence-Number: 5393 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 change. Also, should we be using test ! -e instead of -f? -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com