On 12/11/18 11:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:29 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> I really don't think that it is a good idea to link a future timeline >> within a segment which includes in its name a direct reference to its >> current timeline. Also I don't buy much the argument that those >> segments are a nuisance as well all the time. They may be for some >> tools, however not for others depending on the archiving strategy >> (distributed locations for example), and if they are a problem for your >> deployments, why not just discarding them within the archive command and >> be done with them? > > -1. Writing an archive_command already requires a PhD in > PostgreSQL-ology. The very last thing we should do is invent even > more ways for an archive command to be subtly wrong.
The point here is to make archive commands simpler. As it is, the various backup tools are going to need to find ways to deal with the problem, and each solution will be different. The goal is to come up with a solution that works and that all archive commands can use, rather than each one rolling their own solution. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net
