Subject: Re: [PATCHES] odd output in restore mode
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Martin Zaun <Martin.Zaun@Sun.COM>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>,
	Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>,
	List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <792.1217019537@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <200807011520.m61FKhZ20311@momjian.us> <48867904.9090001@sun.com>
	<1217015178.3894.992.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
	<398.1217017886@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1217019182.3894.1007.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
	<792.1217019537@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:25:01 +0100
Message-Id: <1217021101.3894.1025.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 16:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 16:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I thought the latest conclusion was that changing the behavior of
> >> pg_standby itself wouldn't address the problem anyway, and that what we
> >> need is just a docs patch recommending that people use safe copying
> >> methods in their scripts that copy to the archive area?
> 
> > Plus the rest of this patch, which is really very simple.
> 
> Why?  AFAICT the patch is just a kluge that adds user-visible complexity
> without providing a solution that's actually sure to work.

First, I'm not the one objecting to the current behaviour. 

Currently, there is a wait in there that can be removed if you use a
copy utility that sets size after it does a copy. So we agreed to make
it optional (at PGCon).

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support