Message-ID: <52FC0FB2.1030705@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:20:02 +0800
From: Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
Organization: 2nd Quadrant
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: archive_command vs recovery_command paths
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

Hi folks

Another point of confusion I've been seeing a lot in users on Stack
Overflow, dba.stackexchange.com, etc surrounds the meaning of paths
given in archive_command and restore_command.

Lots of people seem to assume that they are both relative to the master,
and that the master will run the restore_command to fetch archives to
send to the replica on request.

(Yes, I know that's completely missing the point of archive-based
replication, but it seems common).

So I think docs changes are needed to the explanations of those options,
and to the replication/recovery section, that better explain that we
assume there's shared storage like NFS involved, and if there isn't you
need to use commands like scp/rsync instead, or use tools like WAL-E.

I'm not going to get time to do this one for at least a few days, but
I'm posting it now partly so I don't forget about it.

-- 
 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs