public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
To: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: Josh Kupershmidt <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Smith <[email protected]>
Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: somewhat wrong archive_command example
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:15:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CABUevEzBGJoVM5PG7U6A2XJa2u71BJh6+MjR4jC8geM=qHC3dQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAK3UJRHChOcGQ0kzu01wZX6PB9pScHSzg1X+hThdR7QXWoe1yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 09:46 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I thought the idea was just to show what a shell script might look like
>> --- we could say it does the same as a single-line copy, but then people
>> could improve it, or we could add a comment to show how people could
>> improve it.
>
> Why can't we provide the improved version to begin with, if we know it
> needs improvement?  I think we don't really know what it should look
> like, do we?

+1.


>> > I think what we should do is write a wrapper program in C that covers
>> > all the bases, support all platforms, and supports a handful of the most
>> > commonly used copy methods (cp, scp, etc. + compression).  Then everyone
>> > can just use that and doesn't have to figure all these things out from
>> > scratch every time.
>>
>> I doubt it would work because people like the flexibility of shell
>> scripts.
>
> Well, we thought that about the base backup, but now we have
> pg_basebackup, which supports two output methods that should cover most
> cases.  If we could provide an archive command that has two or three
> methods, that could also cover most uses.  Of course, in either case you
> are free to write your own script.

I would say the majority of people *don't* like the flexibility of
shellscripts. They want something simple to use. pg_receivexlog on 9.2
is going to help some of them (as a completement to pg_basebackup).
But also shipping something to use for archive_command that just
copies the files in a proper way would definitely help for usability.

As long as we keep the write-your-own-script-however-you-like method,
just like we did for pg_basebackup, doing this can only be an
improvement. And I don't see anybody suggesting we *remove* this
capability.


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

view thread (24+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: somewhat wrong archive_command example
  In-Reply-To: <CABUevEzBGJoVM5PG7U6A2XJa2u71BJh6+MjR4jC8geM=qHC3dQ@mail.gmail.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox