Re: refactoring basebackup.c

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 12:08 PM tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 1/27/22 10:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Cool. I committed that patch.
> Thanks , Please refer to this scenario where the label is set to 0 for
> server-gzip but the directory is still compressed
>
> [edb(at)centos7tushar bin]$ ./pg_basebackup -t server:/tmp/11 --gzip
> --compress=0 -Xnone
> NOTICE: all required WAL segments have been archived
> [edb(at)centos7tushar bin]$ ls /tmp/11
> 16384.tar backup_manifest base.tar
>
>
> [edb(at)centos7tushar bin]$ ./pg_basebackup -t server:/tmp/10 --gzip
> --compress=server-gzip:0 -Xnone
> NOTICE: all required WAL segments have been archived
> [edb(at)centos7tushar bin]$ ls /tmp/10
> 16384.tar.gz backup_manifest base.tar.gz
>
> 0 is for no compression so the directory should not be compressed if we
> mention server-gzip:0 and both these
> above scenarios should match?

Well what's weird here is that you are using both --gzip and also
--compress. Those both control the same behavior, so it's a surprising
idea to specify both. But I guess if someone does, we should make the
second one fully override the first one. Here's a patch to try to do
that.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com