Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7704A6503FD;
	Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:01:57 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 26784-01; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:01:45 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691FB6503CD;
	Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:59:17 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6PKwv9w000793;
	Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:58:57 -0400 (EDT)
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] odd output in restore mode 
In-reply-to: <1217019182.3894.1007.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> 
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:53:02 +0100"
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:58:57 -0400
Message-ID: <792.1217019537@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200807/1220
X-Sequence-Number: 121480

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.

			regards, tom lane