Re: Server-side base backup: why superuser, not pg_write_server_files?

> On 2 Feb 2022, at 19:58, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 1:50 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 1:46 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Well, if someone wants to step up and provide a patch that changes 'em
>>> all at once, that'd be great. But we've discussed this before and
>>> nothing's happened.
>>
>> I mean, I don't understand why it's even better. And I would go so far
>> as to say that if nobody can be bothered to do the work to convert
>> everything at once, it probably isn't better.

I personally think it's better, so I went and did the work. The attached is a
first pass over the tree to see what such a patch would look like. This should
get a thread of it's own and not be hidden here but as it was discussed I piled
on for now.

> And one thing that concretely stinks about is the progress reporting
> you get while the tests are running:
>
> t/010_pg_basebackup.pl ... 142/?
>
> That's definitely less informative than 142/330 or whatever.

There is that. That's less informative, but only when looking at the tests
while they are running. There is no difference once the tests has finished so
CI runs etc are no less informative. This however is something to consider.

--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/