Heikki Linnakangas wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:4B7412BE.5030605@enterprisedb.com" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Simon
Riggswrote: </pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">Might it not be simpler to add a parameter onto pg_standby?
We send %s to tell pg_standby the standby_mode of the server which is
calling it so it can decide how to act in each case. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
That would work too, but it doesn't seem any simpler to me. On the contrary. </pre></blockquote><br /> I don't know
thatthe ideas are mutually exclusive. Should the server internals do a basic check that the files they're about to
processseem sane before processing them? Yes. Should we provide a full-featured program that knows how far back it
candelete archives rather than expecting people to write their own? Yes. And a modified pg_standby seems the easiest
wayto do that, since it already knows how to do the computations, among other benefits.<br /><br /> I already have a
workin progress patch to pg_standby I'm racing to finish here that cleans up some of the UI warts in the program,
includingthe scary sounding and avoidable warnings Selena submitted a patch to improve. I think I'm going to add this
featureto it, too, whether or not it's deemed necessary. I'm really tired of example setups provided that say "just
writea simple script using cp like <trivial example>" and then supporting those non-production quality messes in
thefield. My scripts for this sort of thing have more error checking in them than functional code. And pg_standby
alreadyhas a healthy sense of paranoia built into it.<br /><br /><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:greg@2ndQuadrant.com">greg@2ndQuadrant.com</a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"href="http://www.2ndQuadrant.us">www.2ndQuadrant.us</a>
</pre>