Re: Patch pg_is_in_backup()

From: Gilles Darold <gilles(dot)darold(at)dalibo(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch pg_is_in_backup()
Date: 2012-05-15 00:52:32
Message-ID: 4FB1A8D0.4080306@dalibo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Sorry for the the double post but it seems that my previous reply
doesn't reach the pgsql-hacker list. So here is the new patches that
limit lines to 80 characters.

Regards,

Le 02/05/2012 19:53, Gabriele Bartolini a écrit :
> Hi Gilles,
>
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> Il 03/04/12 14:21, Gilles Darold ha scritto:
>> +1, this is also my point of view.
>
> I have looked at the patch that contains both pg_is_in_backup() and
> pg_backup_start_time().
>
> From a functional point of view it looks fine to me. I was thinking
> of adding the BackupInProgress() at the beginning of
> pg_backup_start_time(), but the AllocateFile() function already make
> sure the file exists.
>
> I have performed some basic testing of both functions and tried to
> inject invalid characters in the start time field of the backup_label
> file and it is handled (with an exception) by the server. Cool.
>
> I spotted though some formatting issues, in particular indentation
> and multi-line comments. Some rows are longer than 80 chars.
>
> Please resubmit with these cosmetic changes and it is fine with me.
> Thank you.
>
> Cheers,
> Gabriele
>

--
Gilles Darold
Administrateur de bases de données
http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org

Attachment Content-Type Size
postgresql-pg_backup_start_time-patch-v4.diff text/x-patch 4.6 KB
postgresql-pg_backup_start_time-pg_is_in_backup-patch-v4.diff text/x-patch 5.4 KB
postgresql-pg_is_in_backup-patch-v4.diff text/x-patch 3.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-05-15 02:43:35 Re: Bugs in our Windows socket code
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2012-05-14 23:31:20 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Ensure age() returns a stable value rather than the latest value