On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 09:13 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > > I don't think we're going to get this to work reliably without extending > > > the interface between the backend and restore_command. We've discussed > > > many methods and there's always some nasty corner-case like that. > > > > > I think we should leave back-branches as is, and go with Simon's > > > suggestion to add new "recovery_end_command" that's run when the > > > recovery is finished. That's simpler and more reliable than any of the > > > other approaches we've discussed, and might become handy for other > > > purposes as well. > > > > > Does someone want to take a stab at writing a patch for that? > > > > Does this conclusion mean that changing pg_standby is no longer > > on the table for 8.4? It certainly smells more like a new feature > > than a bug fix. > > I think the big frustration is that this issue was first brought up > March 25 and it took two months to resolve it, at which point we were in > beta. I think many hoped a better idea would emerge but often that just > doesn't happen and we have to do the best fix we can and move on.
I agree, very frustrating. Why do you bring it up again now? -- 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
