On 12/11/18 11:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 1:13 PM David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> 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. > > I understand. I'm more or less agreeing with you. Actually, I'm not > really sure whether your particular proposal is the best way of > handling this, but I disagree with Michael's suggestion that we should > just throw responsibility back on archive_command.
I apologize, I misread that. Your comments make a lot more sense now that I read them in the correct context! And yeah, I'm not sure that I'm totally sold on this idea either, but I wanted to get a conversation going. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net
