Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +