On 01.08.2019 19:53, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
> On 26.07.2019 20:43, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
>> On a more general note, I wonder if everyone is happy with the
>> --using-postgresql-conf option name, or we should continue searching
>> for a narrower term. Unfortunately, I don't have any better
>> suggestions right now, but I believe it should be clear that its
>> purpose is to fetch missing WAL files for target. What do you think?
>>
>
> I don't like it either, but this one was my best guess then. Maybe
> --restore-target-wal instead of --using-postgresql-conf will be
> better? And --target-restore-command instead of --restore-command if
> we want to specify that this is restore_command for target server?
>
As Alvaro correctly pointed in the nearby thread [1], we've got an
interference regarding -R command line argument. I agree that it's a
good idea to reserve -R for recovery configuration write to be
consistent with pg_basebackup, so I've updated my patch to use another
letters:
1. -c/--restore-target-wal --- to use restore_command from postgresql.conf
2. -C/--target-restore-command --- to pass restore_command as a command
line argument
Updated and rebased patch is attached. However, now I'm wondering, do we
actually need 1. as a separated option and not being enabled by default?
I cannot imagine a situation, when restore_command is set in the
postgresql.conf and someone prefer pg_rewind to fail instead of fetching
missed WALs automatically, but maybe there are some cases?
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190925174812.GA4916%40alvherre.pgsql
--
Alexey Kondratov
Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company