From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup, manifests and backends older than ~12 |
Date: | 2020-04-13 23:55:07 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobS1B5KfGxA5Em_FqK=0CJ+2EjNaQFdgprCKLM878mS1g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 6:26 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> Well, the documentation tells me that as of protocol.sgml:
> "For compatibility with previous releases, the default is
> <literal>MANIFEST 'no'</literal>."
>
> The code also tells me that, in line with the docs:
> static void
> parse_basebackup_options(List *options, basebackup_options *opt)
> [...]
> MemSet(opt, 0, sizeof(*opt));
> opt->manifest = MANIFEST_OPTION_NO;
>
> And there is also a TAP test for that when passing down --no-manifest,
> which should not create a backup manifest:
> $node->command_ok(
> [
> 'pg_basebackup', '-D', "$tempdir/backup2", '--no-manifest',
> '--waldir', "$tempdir/xlog2"
> ],
>
> So, it seems to me that it is fine to remove this block, as when
> --no-manifest is used, then "manifest" gets set to false, and then it
> does not matter if the MANIFEST clause is added or not as we'd just
> rely on the default. Keeping the block would matter if you want to
> make the code more robust to a change of the default value in the
> BASE_BACKUP query though, and its logic is not incorrect either. So,
> if you wish to keep it, that's fine by me, but it looks cleaner to me
> to remove it and more consistent with the other options like MAX_RATE,
> TABLESPACE_MAP, etc.
Oh, hmm. Maybe I'm getting confused with a previous version of the
patch that behaved differently.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-04-14 00:23:05 | Re: pg_basebackup, manifests and backends older than ~12 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-13 23:55:00 | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |