On 18.09.22 09:13, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> This documentation change only covers archive_library. How are users of
>>> archive_command supposed to handle this?
>>
>> I believe users of archive_command need to do something similar to what is
>> described here. However, it might be more reasonable to expect
>> archive_command users to simply return false when there is a pre-existing
>> file, as the deleted text notes. IIRC that is why I added that sentence
>> originally.
>
> What makes the answer for archive_command diverge from the answer for
> archive_library?
I suspect what we are really trying to say here is
===
Archiving setups (using either archive_command or archive_library)
should be prepared for the rare case that an identical archive file is
being archived a second time. In such a case, they should compare that
the source and the target file are identical and proceed without error
if so.
In some cases, it is difficult or impossible to configure
archive_command or archive_library to do this. In such cases, the
archiving command or library should error like in the case for any
pre-existing target file, and operators need to be prepared to resolve
such cases manually.
===
Is that correct?