Re: New trigger option of pg_standby

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>  
> We're in Beta. You can't just go yanking stuff like that. Beta testers 
> will be justifiably very annoyed.
>
> Please calm down.
>
> pg_standby is useful and needs to be correct. And its existence as a 
> standard module is one of the things that has made me feel confident 
> about recommending people to use the PITR stuff. I'll be very annoyed 
> if it were to get pulled.

Since mentioned in the docs, I consider it at least the semi-official 
tool for pgsql PITR handling. But as this discussion reveals, the api is 
flawed, and will not allow guaranteed consistency (whatever pg_standby 
tries) until fixed. While this may not be a bug of the restore_script 
call, the pitr procedure in total is partially broken (in the sense that 
it doesn't provide what most users expect in a secure way) and thus 
needs to be fixed. It seems a fix can't be provided without extending 
the api.

Regards,
Andreas