Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, PostgreSQL Bugs List <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Confusing error message with too-large file in pg_basebackup
Date: 2015-11-24 14:22:58
Message-ID: CAB7nPqT_ek4ezPqxd6gXWHxQW721Qf_YR+eMWvSUtawK1p=_=A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>wrote:

> These all seem to me to be must-fix issues even if we didn't want to
> back-port use of the base-256 convention. Seeing that we have to deal
> with these things, I'm inclined to just back-port the whole patch to
> all branches.
>

FWIW, patch has been pushed as 00cdd83 and backpatched down to 9.1.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message pinker 2015-11-24 15:34:47 Re: pg_dump - wrong order with inheritance
Previous Message Glauco Torres 2015-11-24 12:54:21 Re: [BUGS] postgresql downgrade issue