At Fri, 11 Jun 2021 16:08:33 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote in
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 03:32:28PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > I think cp can be an example as far as we explain the limitations. (On
> > the other hand "test !-f" cannot since it actually prevents server
> > from working correctly.)
>
> Disagreed. I think that we should not try to change this area until
> we can document a reliable solution, and a simple "cp" is not that.
Isn't removing cp from the documentation a change in this area? I
basically agree to not to change anything but the current example
"test ! -f <fn> && cp .." and relevant description has been known to
be problematic in a certain situation.
- Do we leave it alone igonring the possible problem?
- Just add a description about "the problem"?
- Just remove "test ! -f" and the relevant description?
- Remove "test ! -f" and rewrite the relevant description?
(- or not remove "test ! -f" and rewrite the relevant description?)
- Write the full (known) requirements and use a pseudo tool-name in
the example?
- provide a minimal implement of the command?
- recommend some external tools (that we can guarantee that they
comform the requriements)?
- not recommend any tools?
> Hmm. A simple command that could be used as reference is for example
> "dd" that flushes the file by itself, or we could just revisit the
> discussions about having a pg_copy command, or we could document a
> small utility in perl that does the job.
I think we should do that if pg_copy comforms the mandatory
requirements but maybe it's in the future. Showing the minimal
implement in perl looks good.
However, my main point here is "what should we do for now?". Not
about an ideal solution.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center