On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:07:06PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Oct-03, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:35:02PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > I'm not clear what interface are you proposing. Maybe they would just > > > use the clone-or-fail mode, and note whether it fails? If that's not > > > it, please explain. > > > > Okay. What I am proposing is to not have any kind of automatic mode to > > keep the code simple, with a new option called --transfer-mode, able to > > do three things: > > - "link", which is the equivalent of the existing --link. > > - "copy", the default and the current behavior, which copies files. > > - "clone", the new mode proposed in this thread. > > I see. Peter is proposing to have a fourth mode, essentially > --transfer-mode=clone-or-copy.
Uh, if you use --link, and the two data directories are on different file systems, it fails. No one has ever asked for link-or-copy, so why are we considering clone-or-copy? Are we going to need link-or-clone-or-copy too? I do realize that clone and copy have non-destructive behavior on the old cluster once started, so it does make some sense to merge them, unlike link. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
