Re: Prevent pg_basebackup -Fp -D -?

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 06:50:57AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 2013 2:47 AM, "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> > > Right now, if you use
> > >
> > > pg_basebackup -Ft -D -
> > >
> > > you get a tarfile, written to stdout, for redirection.
> > >
> > > However, if you use:
> > >
> > > pg_basebackup -Fp -D -
> > >
> > > you get a plaintext (unpackaged) backup, in a directory called "-".
> > >
> > > I can't think of a single usecase where this is a good idea. Therefor,
> > > I would suggest we simply throw an error in this case, instead of
> > > creating the directory. Only for the specific case of specifying
> > > exactly "-" as a directory.
> > >
> > > Comments?
> > Isn't this a non-problem? This behavior is in line with the
> > documentation, so I would suspected that if directory name is
> > specified as "-" in plain mode, it should create the folder with this
> > name.
> > Do you consider having a folder of this name an annoyance?
>
> Yes, that is exactly the point - i do consider that an annoyance, and i don't
> see the use case where you'd actually want it. I bet 100% of the users of that
> have been accidental, thinking they'd get the pipe, not the directory.
>
> > > Also, if we do that, is this something we should consider
> > > backpatchable? It's not strictly speaking a bugfix, but I'd say it
> > > fixes some seriously annoying behavior.
> > This would change the spec of pg_basebackup, so no? Does the current
> > behavior have potential security issues?
>
> No, there are no security issues that I can see. Just annoyance. And yes, I
> guess it would change the spec, so backpatching might be a bad idea..

Has this been fixed? If so, I don't see it.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +