From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |
Date: | 2011-01-16 18:04:18 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikGNOEP+G_eQ16jJ3x1kobGnUG+XFB9L6p7kNvE@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 19:03, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 18:59, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Just stick with the OID. There's no reason that I can see to have
>>> "friendly" names for these tarfiles --- in most cases, the DBA will
>>> never even deal with them, no?
>
>> No, this is the output mode where the DBA chooses to get the output in
>> the form of tarfiles. So if chosen, he will definitely deal with it.
>
> Mph. How big a use-case has that got? Offhand I can't see a reason to
> use it at all, ever. If you're trying to set up a clone you want the
> files unpacked.
Yes, but the tool isn't just for setting up a clone.
If you're doing a regular base backup, that's *not* for replication,
you might want them in files.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-16 18:08:03 | Re: We need to log aborted autovacuums |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-16 18:03:23 | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |