On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 06:08:29AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 18.09.22 09:13, Noah Misch wrote: > >>>This documentation change only covers archive_library. How are users of > >>>archive_command supposed to handle this? > >> > >>I believe users of archive_command need to do something similar to what is > >>described here. However, it might be more reasonable to expect > >>archive_command users to simply return false when there is a pre-existing > >>file, as the deleted text notes. IIRC that is why I added that sentence > >>originally. > > > >What makes the answer for archive_command diverge from the answer for > >archive_library? > > I suspect what we are really trying to say here is > > === > Archiving setups (using either archive_command or archive_library) should be > prepared for the rare case that an identical archive file is being archived > a second time. In such a case, they should compare that the source and the > target file are identical and proceed without error if so. > > In some cases, it is difficult or impossible to configure archive_command or > archive_library to do this. In such cases, the archiving command or library > should error like in the case for any pre-existing target file, and > operators need to be prepared to resolve such cases manually. > === > > Is that correct?
I wanted it to stop saying anything like the second paragraph, hence commit d263ced. Implementing a proper archiving setup is not especially difficult, and inviting the operator to work around a wrong implementation invites damaging mistakes under time pressure.