On 10.08.2011 12:29, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 18:07, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
On 09.08.2011 18:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
How about making the new backup_label field optional? If absent, assume
current behavior.
That's how I actually did it in the patch. However, the problem wrt.
requiring initdb is not the new field in backup_label, it's the new
field in the control file.
Yeah. I think it's too late to be fooling with pg_control for 9.1.
Just fix it in HEAD.
Should we add a note to the documentation of pg_basebackup in 9.1
telling people to take care about the failure case?
Something like "Note: if you abort the backup before it's finished, the
backup won't be valid" ? That seems pretty obvious to me, hardly worth
documenting.
Or add a signal
handler in the pg_basebackup client emitting a warning about it?
We don't have such a signal handler pg_dump either. I don't think we
should add it.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
