Re: refactoring basebackup.c

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:23 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah, that's what it should be doing. I'll commit a fix, thanks for
> the report and diagnosis.

Here's a new patch set.

0001 - When I committed the patch to add the missing 2 blocks of zero
bytes to the tar archives generated by the server, I failed to adjust
the documentation. So 0001 does that. This is the only new patch in
the series. I was not sure whether to just remove the statement from
the documentation saying that those blocks aren't included, or whether
to mention that we used to include them and no longer do. I went for
the latter; opinions welcome.

0002 - This adds a new COPY subprotocol for taking base backups. I've
improved it over the previous version by adding documentation. I'm
still seeking comments on the points I raised in
http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobrOXbDh+hCzzVkD3weV3R-QRy3SPa=FRb_Rv9wF5iPJw@mail.gmail.com
but what I'm leaning toward doing is committing the patch as is and
then submitting - or maybe several patches - later to rip some this
and a few other old things out. That way the debate - or lack thereof
- about what to do here doesn't have to block the main patch set, and
also, it feels safer to make removing the existing stuff a separate
effort rather than doing it now.

0003 - This adds "server" and "blackhole" as backup targets. In this
version, I've improved the documentation. Also, the previous version
only let you use a backup target with -Xnone, and I realized that was
stupid. -Xfetch is OK too. -Xstream still doesn't work, since that's
implemented via client-side logic. I think this still needs some work
to be committable, like adding tests, but I don't expect to make any
major changes.

0004 - Server-side gzip compression. Similar level of maturity to 0003.

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