| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [patch] reorder tablespaces in basebackup tar stream for backup_label |
| Date: | 2017-03-31 04:37:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQU1H=PAG3XBYFFg9w+emeQFYAdkep7cWVeJukXtB_m_Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't think that using psql to run BASE_BACKUP command is good
> approach.
That's basically what pg_basebackup is made for, and it makes sure
that some sanity checks and measures happen.
> Instead, IMO you basically should implement the client program
> which can handle BASE_BACKUP properly, or extend pg_basebackup
> so that you can do what you want to do.
In my first reviews of the patch, I completely forgot the fact that
BASE_BACKUP does send the start LSN of the backup in the first result
set, so the patch proposed is actually rather useless because the data
you are looking for is already at hand. If more data would be
interesting to have, like the start timestamp number, we could just
extend the first result set a bit as Fujii-san is coming at. Let's
drop this patch and move on.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2017-03-31 04:37:55 | Re: postgres_fdw IMPORT SCHEMA and partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-03-31 04:23:34 | Re: postgres_fdw IMPORT SCHEMA and partitioned tables |