On Saturday, March 29, 2014, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> writes: > > But, it is hard to tell what the real solution is, because the doc > doesn't > > explain why it should refuse (and fail) to overwrite an existing file. > The > > only reason I can think of to make that recommendation is because it is > > easy to accidentally configure two clusters to attempt to archive to the > > same location, and having them overwrite each others files should be > > guarded against. If I am right, it seems like this reason should be > added > > to the docs, so people know what they are defending against. And if I am > > wrong, it seems even more important that the (correct) reason is added to > > the docs. > > If memory serves, that is the reason ... and I thought it *was* explained > somewhere in the docs. >
You are right, and it has been there for a decade. I don't know how I missed that the last several times I read it. I remember clearly the paragraph below it, just not that one. Sorry, Jeff
