On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 14:22 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 09:32 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> Hmm, so after running restore_command, check the file size and if it's > >> too short, treat it the same as if restore_command returned non-zero? > >> And it will be retried on the next iteration. Works for me, though OTOH > >> it will then fail to complain about a genuinely WAL file that's > >> truncated for some reason. I guess there's no way around that, even if > >> you have a script as restore_command that does the file size check, it > >> will have the same problem. > > > > Are we trying to re-invent pg_standby here? > > That's not the goal, but we seem to need some of the same functionality > in the backend now.
I think you need to say why... -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
