Re: refactoring basebackup.c

Hi Robert,

Please find the lz4 compression patch here that basically has:

1. Documentation
2. pgindent run over it.
3. your comments addressed for using "+="

I have not included the compression level per your comment below:
---------
> "On second thought, maybe we don't need to do this. There's a thread on
> "Teach pg_receivewal to use lz4 compression" which concluded that
> supporting different compression levels was unnecessary."
---------

Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:17 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:23 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Yeah, that's what it should be doing. I'll commit a fix, thanks for
> > the report and diagnosis.
>
> Here's a new patch set.
>
> 0001 - When I committed the patch to add the missing 2 blocks of zero
> bytes to the tar archives generated by the server, I failed to adjust
> the documentation. So 0001 does that. This is the only new patch in
> the series. I was not sure whether to just remove the statement from
> the documentation saying that those blocks aren't included, or whether
> to mention that we used to include them and no longer do. I went for
> the latter; opinions welcome.
>
> 0002 - This adds a new COPY subprotocol for taking base backups. I've
> improved it over the previous version by adding documentation. I'm
> still seeking comments on the points I raised in
>
> http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobrOXbDh+hCzzVkD3weV3R-QRy3SPa=FRb_Rv9wF5iPJw@mail.gmail.com
> but what I'm leaning toward doing is committing the patch as is and
> then submitting - or maybe several patches - later to rip some this
> and a few other old things out. That way the debate - or lack thereof
> - about what to do here doesn't have to block the main patch set, and
> also, it feels safer to make removing the existing stuff a separate
> effort rather than doing it now.
>
> 0003 - This adds "server" and "blackhole" as backup targets. In this
> version, I've improved the documentation. Also, the previous version
> only let you use a backup target with -Xnone, and I realized that was
> stupid. -Xfetch is OK too. -Xstream still doesn't work, since that's
> implemented via client-side logic. I think this still needs some work
> to be committable, like adding tests, but I don't expect to make any
> major changes.
>
> 0004 - Server-side gzip compression. Similar level of maturity to 0003.
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>