Message-ID: <54591901.4080808@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 13:20:49 -0500
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 9.4 recommendations for archive_command vs. replication
 slots
References: <54454EB7.9010601@gmx.net>
 <WM!8cacb5b04161cc548517e289b42e413c6772613a57b43f8937049cebb6eea300579ec63d180ccd198147a08b8d2b3ed6!@asav-3.01.com>
 <54516E69.2060007@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <54516E69.2060007@agliodbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

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