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. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
