From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Prevent pg_basebackup -Fp -D -? |
Date: | 2013-10-03 00:47:18 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQRDr8RuFAK+AFh0FtHk2JXYD1jndm=-sp4EEGDuUrbRA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> Right now, if you use
>
> pg_basebackup -Ft -D -
>
> you get a tarfile, written to stdout, for redirection.
>
> However, if you use:
>
> pg_basebackup -Fp -D -
>
> you get a plaintext (unpackaged) backup, in a directory called "-".
>
> I can't think of a single usecase where this is a good idea. Therefor,
> I would suggest we simply throw an error in this case, instead of
> creating the directory. Only for the specific case of specifying
> exactly "-" as a directory.
>
> Comments?
Isn't this a non-problem? This behavior is in line with the
documentation, so I would suspected that if directory name is
specified as "-" in plain mode, it should create the folder with this
name.
Do you consider having a folder of this name an annoyance?
> Also, if we do that, is this something we should consider
> backpatchable? It's not strictly speaking a bugfix, but I'd say it
> fixes some seriously annoying behavior.
This would change the spec of pg_basebackup, so no? Does the current
behavior have potential security issues?
My 2c. Regards,
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-10-03 01:10:39 | Re: Prevent pg_basebackup -Fp -D -? |
Previous Message | KONDO Mitsumasa | 2013-10-03 00:32:27 | Re: Who is pgFoundery administrator? |