From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |
Date: | 2011-01-23 11:33:29 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinVjL6u+XF0M5u53Ca_YgJGz=CbvqybN51b3vyF@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 17:17, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 16:45, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> Do we envision pg_basebackup as something we will enahance, and if so,
>> should we consider a generic name?
>
> Well, it's certainly going to be enhanced. I think there are two main
> uses for it - backups, and setting up replication slaves. I can't see
> it expanding beyond those, really.
I've committed this with the current name, pg_basebackup, before the
bikeshed hits all the colors of the rainbow. If there's too much
uproar, we can always rename it - it's a lot easier now that we have
git :P
Base backups is something we discuss regularly, so it's not a new term.
And I don't see why people would be confused that this is a tool that
you run on the client (which can be the same machine) - afte rall, we
don't do pg_receive_dump, pg_receive_dumpall, pg_send_restore on those
tools.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2011-01-23 13:43:11 | Re: Use of O_DIRECT only for open_* sync options |
Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2011-01-23 11:11:38 | Re: Perl 5.12 complains about ecpg parser-hacking scripts |