On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 16:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
