Re: [HACKERS] Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command

2017-01-06 Thread David Steele
On 1/6/17 10:15 AM, Feike Steenbergen wrote: On 6 January 2017 at 15:42, Magnus Hagander mailto:mag...@hagander.net>> wrote: Is there actual value in providing both %p and %f? It's not like it's really hard to do, but since the path will be specified on the same commandline, you could just pu

Re: [HACKERS] Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command

2017-01-06 Thread Feike Steenbergen
On 6 January 2017 at 15:42, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Is there actual value in providing both %p and %f? It's not like it's really hard to do, but since the path will be specified on the same commandline, you could just put it in the command? As %f can be determined from %p I don't mind that much

Re: [HACKERS] Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command

2017-01-06 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:55 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 1/6/17 8:49 AM, Feike Steenbergen wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, David Steele > > wrote: >> >>> For my part I still prefer an actual command to be executed so it will >>> >> start/restart the arch

Re: [HACKERS] Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command

2017-01-06 Thread David Steele
On 1/6/17 8:49 AM, Feike Steenbergen wrote: On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, David Steele mailto:da...@pgmasters.net>> wrote: For my part I still prefer an actual command to be executed so it will start/restart the archiver if it is not already running or died. This reduces the number of proce

Re: [HACKERS] Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command

2017-01-06 Thread Feike Steenbergen
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, David Steele wrote: > For my part I still prefer an actual command to be executed so it will start/restart the archiver if it is not already running or died. This reduces the number of processes that I need to ensure are running. > > If the consensus is that a sign

Re: [HACKERS] Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command

2017-01-06 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 1/6/17 8:09 AM, Feike Steenbergen wrote: > >> On 6 January 2017 at 13:50, Magnus Hagander > > wrote: >> >>> I think we're better off clearly documenting that we don't care about >>> >> it. And basically let the e

Re: [HACKERS] Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command

2017-01-06 Thread David Steele
On 1/6/17 8:09 AM, Feike Steenbergen wrote: On 6 January 2017 at 13:50, Magnus Hagander mailto:mag...@hagander.net>> wrote: I think we're better off clearly documenting that we don't care about it. And basically let the external command be responsible for that part. So for example, your typic

Re: [HACKERS] Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command

2017-01-06 Thread Feike Steenbergen
On 6 January 2017 at 13:50, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I think we're better off clearly documenting that we don't care about it. And basically let the external command be responsible for that part. > So for example, your typical backup manager would listen to this signal or whatever to react quickl

Re: [HACKERS] Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command

2017-01-06 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Feike Steenbergen < feikesteenber...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > When reading through "Support for pg_receivexlog --format=plain|tar"[1], I > came across a notion from Magnus Hagander that has crossed my mind a few > times as well in the past years. As the featu

[HACKERS] Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command

2017-01-06 Thread Feike Steenbergen
Hi all, When reading through "Support for pg_receivexlog --format=plain|tar"[1], I came across a notion from Magnus Hagander that has crossed my mind a few times as well in the past years. As the feature proposed here is not directly related to that thread, I thought it best to start a new thread