From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 9.4 recommendations for archive_command vs. replication slots
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 13:20:49 -0500
Message-ID: <54591901.4080808@gmx.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54516E69.2060007@agliodbs.com>
References: <54454EB7.9010601@gmx.net>
<WM!8cacb5b04161cc548517e289b42e413c6772613a57b43f8937049cebb6eea300579ec63d180ccd198147a08b8d2b3ed6!@asav-3.01.com>
<54516E69.2060007@agliodbs.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-docs>
On 10/29/14 6:47 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/20/2014 11:04 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> The 9.4 documentation for streaming replication still starts out by
>> making you set up archive_command and restore_command. Isn't that
>> obsolete now with replication slots? Shouldn't the first step be to set
>> up replication slots and then go from there?
>
> Well, bluntly, our replication docs should be taken out behind the barn
> with an axe. They tell you more about the development history of
> PostgreSQL than they tell you about how to replicate.
That's true, but can we come to a consensus of what the preferred
advertised method should be?
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: peter_e@gmx.net, josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: 9.4 recommendations for archive_command vs. replication slots
In-Reply-To: <54591901.4080808@gmx.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox