Re: should pg_basebackup be listed as a server application?

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 23:38, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On fre, 2011-05-06 at 20:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not entirely sure if the notion of an "administrative" app helps
>> much, but for sure I've never been satisfied with the equation of "can
>> in principle execute remotely" with "client".  This is a good time to
>> be rethinking that.
>
> One piece of supporting evidence that has been moderately useful over
> the years is that what we list as server applications are dependent on a
> particular major version (or the dependency closure of that, to include
> pg_ctl), whereas clients work with multiple server versions to varying
> degrees.
>
> And another, possibly equivalent, factor is that what you see under
> "server" is that it packaged in the server package, and what is under
> "client" is packaged in the client package.  That's kind of useful for
> quickly finding what to install.
>
> So where would pg_basebackup fit in according to these two criteria?

It should work with different versions of the server. It will require
a 9.1 or newer server, but I see no reason why pg_basebackup 9.2
shouldn't work with a 9.1 server, for example.

I'm not sure if it'd go in a server or client RPM though, I'll let a
packager comment on that part.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/