Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 05/12/2015 08:35 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> >> Yes, sorry, I had a moment of brain fade yesterday. However, I think we're a bit under-documented on the pg_basebackup page, regarding both tar mode and tablespace_map (which isn't e

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 05/12/2015 08:35 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Yes, sorry, I had a moment of brain fade yesterday. However, I think we're a bit under-documented on the pg_basebackup page, regarding both tar mode and tablespace_map (which isn't even mentioned). And there is this which I noticed this morning:

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 05/11/2015 11:01 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Andrew Dunstan > wrote: > > > On 05/11/2015 02:02 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Andrew Dunstan mailto:and...@dunslane.net>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 05/11/2015 02:02 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Andrew Dunstan mailto:and...@dunslane.net>> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > This generally looks good, but I have a couple of questions before I commit it. >> >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 05/11/2015 02:02 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Andrew Dunstan > wrote: > > > > This generally looks good, but I have a couple of questions before I commit it. > > First, why is the new option for the BASE_BACKUP command of the Streamin

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > This generally looks good, but I have a couple of questions before I commit it. > > First, why is the new option for the BASE_BACKUP command of the Streaming Replication protcol "TAR"? It seems rather misleading. Shouldn't it be somet

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 12/20/2014 05:59 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas mailto:hlinnakan...@vmware.com>> wrote: > > > > On 12/16/2014 06:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> > >> I'm no

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 07 January 2015 11:21, Amit Kapila Wrote, >Tom has spotted this problem and suggested 3 different options >to handle this issue, apart from above 2, third one is "Go over to >a byte-count-then-value format". Then Andrew and Heikki >supported/asked to follow option 2 (as is followed in patch) a

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Dilip kumar wrote: > > On 20 December 2014 16:30, Amit Kapila Wrote, > >Summarization of latest changes: > > >1. Change file name from symlink_label to tablespace_map and changed > > >the same every where in comments and variable names. > > >2. This feature will be

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 20 December 2014 16:30, Amit Kapila Wrote, >Summarization of latest changes: >1. Change file name from symlink_label to tablespace_map and changed >the same every where in comments and variable names. >2. This feature will be supportted for both windows and linux; tablespace_map >file will be

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas < hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > > > > On 12/16/2014 06:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> > >> I'm not clear why human readability is the major criterion here. As for > >> that, it will b

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas < hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > > On 12/16/2014 06:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> I'm not clear why human readability is the major criterion here. As for >> that, it will be quite difficult for a human to distinguish a name with >> a spac

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 12/16/2014 06:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I'm not clear why human readability is the major criterion here. As for that, it will be quite difficult for a human to distinguish a name with a space at the end from one without. I really think a simple encoding scheme would be much the best. For no

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 12/16/2014 04:34 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Amit Kapila mailto:amit.kapil...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Sorry, I was not paying very close attention to this thread and missed > > > the request for comments. A few such: > > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > > On 11/20/2014 02:27 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > >> Now the part where I would like to receive feedback before revising the > > >> patch is on the coding style.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 11/20/2014 02:27 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Robert Haas mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> > mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote: >> > >> R

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

Amit Kapila writes: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> What makes you think quote isn't allowed in tablespace paths? > Below part of code makes me think that quote is not allowed. > Oid > CreateTableSpace(CreateTableSpaceStmt *stmt) > { > .. > /* disallow quotes, else CREATE

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Amit Kapila writes: > >> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> 1. The patch is completely naive about what might be in the symlink > >>> path string; eg embedded spaces in the path would break it. On at > >>> least some plat

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 12/14/2014 07:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Amit Kapila writes: On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: 1. The patch is completely naive about what might be in the symlink path string; eg embedded spaces in the path would break it. On at least some platforms, newlines could be in the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

Amit Kapila writes: >> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> 1. The patch is completely naive about what might be in the symlink >>> path string; eg embedded spaces in the path would break it. On at >>> least some platforms, newlines could be in the path as well. I'm not >>> sur

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

Amit Kapila wrote: > One way to deal with this could be to append a delimiter(which is not > allowed > in tablespace path like quote (\')) at the end of tablespace path while > writing the same to symlink label file and then use that as end marker while > reading it from file. Some GNU tools such

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > > On 11/20/2014 02:27 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > >> Now the part where I would like to receive feedback before revising the > > >> patch is on the coding

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > On 11/20/2014 02:27 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> Now the part where I would like to receive feedback before revising the > >> patch is on the coding style. It seems to me from Tom's comments that > >> he is not happy

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 11/20/2014 02:27 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Now the part where I would like to receive feedback before revising the >> patch is on the coding style. It seems to me from Tom's comments that >> he is not happy with the code, now I am not sure which part of the patch >> he

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 11/20/2014 02:27 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Alvaro Herrera > mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote: > >> Right, but they provide same functionality as symlinks and now we > >>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > >> Right, but they provide same functionality as symlinks and now we > >> are even planing to provide this feature for both linux and windows as > >> both Tom and Robert seems to feel

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Right, but they provide same functionality as symlinks and now we >> are even planing to provide this feature for both linux and windows as >> both Tom and Robert seems to feel, it's better that way. Anyhow, >> I think naming any entity ge

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Alvaro Herrera < alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > One use case mentioned upthread is having the clone be created in the > > > > > same machine as the source server.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > I think the fact that we use symlinks is an implementation detail; > > aren't them actually junction points, not symlinks, in some Windows > > cases? > > Right, but they provide same functionality as symlinks and n

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Alvaro Herrera < alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > I think symlink_label isn't a very good name. This file is not a label > > > in the sense

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > > > Amit Kapila wrote: > > I think symlink_label isn't a very good name. This file is not a label > > in the sense that backup_label is; it seems more a "catalog" to me. And > > it's not, in essence, about symlin

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Tom Lane 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 lo

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Amit Kapila wrote: > > > 2. Symlink file format: > > > > 16387 E:\PostgreSQL\tbs > > > > Symlink file will contain entries for all the tablspaces > > under pg_tblspc directory. I have kept the file name as > > symlink_label (suggestion

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 11/13/14 4:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> Is this still relevant after this commit? > >> > > >> > commit fb05f3ce83d225dd0f39f8860ce04082753e9e98 > >> > Author: Peter Eisentraut > >> > Date: Sat Feb 22 13:38:06 2014 -0500 > >>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 11/13/14 4:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Is this still relevant after this commit? >> > >> > commit fb05f3ce83d225dd0f39f8860ce04082753e9e98 >> > Author: Peter Eisentraut >> > Date: Sat Feb 22 13:38:06 2014 -0500 >> > >> > pg_basebackup: Add support for relocating tablespaces > I be

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

Amit Kapila wrote: > 2. Symlink file format: > > 16387 E:\PostgreSQL\tbs > > Symlink file will contain entries for all the tablspaces > under pg_tblspc directory. I have kept the file name as > symlink_label (suggestion are welcome if you want some > different name for this file). I think sym

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Tom Lane 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.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> OTOH, if that is okay, then I think we can avoid few #ifdef WIN32 that >> this patch introduces and can have consistency for this operation on >> both linux and Windows. > Having one code path for everything seems appea

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > I have mentioned that this can be usable for Linux users as well on that >> > thread, however I think we might want

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> > > > > I have mentioned that this can be usable for Linux users as well on that > > thread, however I think we might want to provide it with an option for > > linux users. In general,

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> >> On 11/13/14 11:52 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> > Amit Kapila wrote: >> > >> >> This patch is in "Ready for committer" stage for more than 1.5 months. >> >> I believe this is an im

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On 11/13/14 11:52 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Amit Kapila wrote: > > > >> This patch is in "Ready for committer" stage for more than 1.5 months. > >> I believe this is an important functionality such that without this tar > >> format o

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I'm not fully on board with that premise. (Get a better tar tool. > Submit a patch.) Noah was unable to find one that works: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130801161519.ga334...@tornado.leadboat.com If most tar tools worked, an

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 11/13/14 11:52 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Amit Kapila wrote: > >> This patch is in "Ready for committer" stage for more than 1.5 months. >> I believe this is an important functionality such that without this tar >> format of pg_basebackup is not usable on Windows. I feel this >> will add a va

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

Amit Kapila wrote: > This patch is in "Ready for committer" stage for more than 1.5 months. > I believe this is an important functionality such that without this tar > format of pg_basebackup is not usable on Windows. I feel this > will add a value to pg_basebackup utility and moreover the need >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Dilip kumar wrote: > > > > On 12 September 2014 14:34, Amit Kapila Wrote > > > >Please find updated patch to include those documentation changes. > > > > > > > > Looks fine, Moved to Ready for committer. > >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Dilip kumar wrote: > > On 12 September 2014 14:34, Amit Kapila Wrote > >Please find updated patch to include those documentation changes. > > > > Looks fine, Moved to Ready for committer. Thanks a lot for the review. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 12 September 2014 14:34, Amit Kapila Wrote >Please find updated patch to include those documentation changes. Looks fine, Moved to Ready for committer. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Dilip kumar wrote: > On 11 September 2014 10:21, Amit kapila Wrote, > >I don't think currently such a limitation is mentioned in docs, > > >however I think we can update the docs at below locations: > >1. In description of pg_start_backup in below page: > > http://

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 11 September 2014 10:21, Amit kapila Wrote, >I don't think currently such a limitation is mentioned in docs, >however I think we can update the docs at below locations: >1. In description of pg_start_backup in below page: >http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-admin.html#FUNCTI

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Dilip kumar wrote: > > > I have done the testing and behavior is as per expectation, > > Do we need to do some document change? I mean is this limitation on windows is mentioned anywhere ? I don't think currently such a limitation is mentioned in docs, however I t

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 20 August 2014 19:49, Amit Kapila Wrote > There are some comments I would like to share with you > > > > 1. Rebase the patch to current GIT head. >Done. >> + initStringInfo(&symlinkfbuf); >> >> I think declaration and initialization of symlinkfbuf string

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Dilip kumar wrote: > > I have reviewed the patch and did not find any major comments. Thanks for the review. > There are some comments I would like to share with you > > > > 1. Rebase the patch to current GIT head. Done. > > 2. +

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

15 July 2014 19:29 Amit Kapila Wrote, >Implementation details: --- >1. This feature is implemented only for tar format in windows >as native windows utilites are not able to create symlinks while >extracting files from tar (It might be possible to create symlinks >i

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

Magnus Hagander wrote: >On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 01:04:42PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> On 08/01/2013 12:15 PM, Noah Misch wrote: 1. Include in the base backup a file listing symbolic links/junction points, then have archive reco

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 08/12/2013 02:22 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 08/12/2013 01:40 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: I also like the concept of #2, but I think we need to think about it a bit more. One of the things I like about barman backups is that on recove

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 08/12/2013 01:40 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: I also like the concept of #2, but I think we need to think about it a bit more. One of the things I like about barman backups is that on recovery you can map where tablesp

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 08/12/2013 01:40 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: I also like the concept of #2, but I think we need to think about it a bit more. One of the things I like about barman backups is that on recovery you can map where tablespaces go, on a per tablespace basis (it's not very well documented, or wasn't

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 01:04:42PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> On 08/01/2013 12:15 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >>> 1. Include in the base backup a file listing symbolic links/junction points, >>> then have archive recovery recreate them. This fil

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 01:04:42PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 08/01/2013 12:15 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> 1. Include in the base backup a file listing symbolic links/junction points, >> then have archive recovery recreate them. This file would be managed like >> the >> backup label file; exc

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 06:44:41PM +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Noah Misch writes: > > 2. Add a pg_basebackup option like "--destdir" or "--sysroot", meaningful > > only > > with -Fp; tablespace backups will be stored relative to it. So if the > > actual > > tablespace path is c:/foo, --des

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 08/01/2013 12:15 PM, Noah Misch wrote: A "pg_basebackup -Fp" running on the same system as the target cluster will fail in the presence of tablespaces; it would backup each tablespace to its original path, and those paths are in use locally for the very originals we're copying. "pg_basebacku

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

Noah Misch writes: > A "pg_basebackup -Fp" running on the same system as the target cluster will > fail in the presence of tablespaces; it would backup each tablespace to its I'd like to see that fixed, +1. > 1. Include in the base backup a file listing symbolic links/junction points, > then hav

[HACKERS] pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

A "pg_basebackup -Fp" running on the same system as the target cluster will fail in the presence of tablespaces; it would backup each tablespace to its original path, and those paths are in use locally for the very originals we're copying. "pg_basebackup -Ft" does not exhibit that hazard, and I ty