From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup wish list |
Date: | 2016-07-26 06:28:25 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwG9C6OnBy0xbFfv-oWpxawo7kTHdgKG7m0JOjat4xZvxA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 7/12/16 12:53 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> The --help message for pg_basebackup says:
>>>
>>> -Z, --compress=0-9 compress tar output with given compression level
>>>
>>> But -Z0 is then rejected as 'invalid compression level "0"'. The real
>>> docs do say 1-9, only the --help message has this bug. Trivial patch
>>> attached.
>>
>> pg_dump --help and man page say it supports 0..9. Maybe we should make
>> that more consistent.
>
> pg_dump actually does support -Z0, though. Well, sort of. It outputs
> plain text. Rather than plain text wrapped in some kind of dummy gzip
> header, which is what I had naively expected.
>
> Is that what -Z0 in pg_basebackup should do as well, just output
> uncompressed tar data, and not add the ".gz" to the "base.tar" file
> name?
Yes, I think. What about the attached patch?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
basebackup_compression_level0.patch | text/x-patch | 1.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2016-07-26 07:48:16 | Re: bug in citext's upgrade script for parallel aggregates |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2016-07-26 04:51:53 | Re: Constraint merge and not valid status |