On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Generally I'd be in favor of avoiding platform-dependent code where > > possible, but that doesn't represent a YES vote for this particular > > patch. It looks pretty messy in a quick look, even granting that the > > #ifdef WIN32's would all go away. > > Hmm, OK. I have not read the patch. Hopefully that's something that > could be fixed. > > > A larger question here is about forward/backward compatibility of the > > basebackup files. Changing the representation of symlinks like this > > would break that. Maybe we don't care, not sure (is there already a > > catversion check for these things?). Changing the file format for only > > some platforms seems like definitely a bad idea though. > > What are the practical consequences of changing the file format? I > think that an old backup containing symlinks could be made to work on > a new server that knows how to create them,
So if I understand correctly, by *old backup* you mean backup created by 9.5 and by *new server*, you mean server > 9.5, if yes the current design should handle it. However if the backup is created on version < 9.5 using pg_basebackup of same version and trying to restore it with server >=9.5 won't work, because server won't have the information about symlinks. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com