MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABUevExewkoNC4zJLyyFTSk7Wqaoj8Xh7ctks2WrxRFWjabMCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1316524671.9044.12.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com>
	<CABUevEzSt1aB0zONL2g0TTa0W3q9uAwHFRCbxXyySXcv6sJZJQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHGQGwHnVtdeaTKSx+JwC3JKsgkNUH0cyJi4QXBV+3tRw4Tdjg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABUevExewkoNC4zJLyyFTSk7Wqaoj8Xh7ctks2WrxRFWjabMCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:30:33 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAHGQGwE91eVzXZ4Y70qW4ssSgCDHP6XEWrXy+HtOhs2mMCHnxg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: somewhat wrong archive_command example
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 03:58, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 15:17, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>> At
>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/continuous-archiving.html
>>>> we say
>>>>
>>>> """
>>>> Many people choose to use scripts to define their archive_command, so
>>>> that their postgresql.conf entry looks very simple:
>>>>
>>>> archive_command = 'local_backup_script.sh'
>>>> """
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me, however, that even a simple archive_command like that
>>>> ought to contain at least %p, right?
>>>
>>> Should always need both %p and %f, no?
>>
>> Yes unless the script extracts the file name from the path given as %p.
>
> Do we actually guarantee that this will wok?
>
> I know our current implementation does, but does the contract in the
> API actually guarantee that we will not change this implementation?

There is no such a guarantee. I agree with that %f should also be given
at the same time.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center