Command to prune archive at restartpoints
in [PgSql]
|
From: Robert Haas on 8 Jun 2010 20:47 On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew(a)dunslane.net> writes: >> I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their >> principal function, not an implementation detail, IMNSHO. > > Weak preference for archive_cleanup_command here. OK, sounds like we have consensus on that. Who wants to do it? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 8 Jun 2010 17:17 On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Greg Stark <gsstark(a)mit.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 11:37 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> >>> One awkward omission in the new built-in standby mode, mainly used for >>> streaming replication, is that there is no easy way to delete old >>> archived files like you do with the %r parameter to restore_command. >> >> Would it be better to call this "archive_cleanup_command"? That might >> help people understand the need for and the use of this parameter. > > This is bikeshedding but fwiw I like Simon's suggestion. So, this thread is hanging out on our list of open items for 9.0. My personal opinion on it is that I don't really care much one way or the other. archive_cleanup_command does seem easier to understand, but restartpoint_command has the advantage of describing exactly when it gets run from a technical perspective, which might be a good thing, too. Since nobody's felt motivated to do anything about this for two and a half months and we've now been through two betas with it the way it is, I'm inclined to say we should just leave it alone. On the other hand, both of the people who voted in favor of changing it are committers, and if one of them feels like putting in the effort to change it, it won't bother me much, except that I feel it should get done RSN. But one way or the other we need to make a decision and get this off the list. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 8 Jun 2010 21:51 On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro(a)oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > Andrew Dunstan <andrew(a)dunslane.net> writes: >> >> I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their >> >> principal function, not an implementation detail, IMNSHO. >> > >> > Weak preference for archive_cleanup_command here. >> >> OK, sounds like we have consensus on that. �Who wants to do it? > > Do we just need to replace all of them? If so, patch attached. > I replaced 3 terms: recovery_end_command, recovery-end-command, > and recoveryEndCommand. I think we're replacing restartpoint_command, not recovery_end_command. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 8 Jun 2010 18:45 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(a)dunslane.net> writes: > I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their > principal function, not an implementation detail, IMNSHO. Weak preference for archive_cleanup_command here. > More importantly, we should include an example in the docs. I created > one the other day when this was actually bothering me a bit (see > <http://people.planetpostgresql.org/andrew/index.php?/archives/85-Keeping-a-hot-standby-log-archive-clean.html>). > That seemed to work ok, but maybe it's too long, and maybe people would > prefer a shell script to perl. Short is good. Maybe you could remove the logging stuff from the example. As for the language choice, my first thought is +1 for perl over shell, mainly because it might be directly useful to people on Windows while shell never would be. On the other hand, if it's possible to do a useful one-liner in shell then let's do it that way. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Fujii Masao on 8 Jun 2010 22:00
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro(a)oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > Andrew Dunstan <andrew(a)dunslane.net> writes: >> >> I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their >> >> principal function, not an implementation detail, IMNSHO. >> > >> > Weak preference for archive_cleanup_command here. >> >> OK, sounds like we have consensus on that. �Who wants to do it? > > Do we just need to replace all of them? If so, patch attached. > I replaced 3 terms: recovery_end_command, recovery-end-command, > and recoveryEndCommand. s/recovery_end_command/restartpoint_command? I prefer restartpoint_command over archive_cleanup_command because not only restartpoint_command but also recovery_end_command is used for archive cleanup. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |