On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 10:04:19AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > This restriction is unlikely going to be removed, still I would rather > keep the escaped logic in pg_basebackup. This is the usual, > recommended coding pattern, and there is a risk that folks refer to > this code block for their own fancy stuff, spreading the problem. The > intention behind the code is to use an escaped name as well. For > those reasons your patch is fine by me.
Attempting to use a slot with an unsupported set of characters will lead beforehand to a failure when trying to fetch the WAL segments with START_REPLICATION, meaning that this spot will never be reached and that there is no active bug, but for the sake of consistency I see no problems with applying the fix on HEAD. So, are there any objections with that? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature