From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup wish list |
Date: | 2016-08-01 08:39:34 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwEE5-znk2o5DgsQrzPwcmdzhWHdDwtCBeoXr0o5Lfx6Jg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think there is some value in providing
>>> .tar for -Z 0,
>>
>> I was thinking that "-Ft -Z0" is something like an alias of "-Ft".
>> That is, the backup is taken in uncompressed tar format.
>>
>>> however in that case how should we define usage of -F p
>>> -Z 0? Shall we say with plain format -Z 0 gets ignored or throw error
>>> or do something else? If first, then I think it is better to mention
>>> the same in docs.
>>
>> ISTM that it's better to ignore that case, like pg_dump -Ft -Z0
>> doesn't throw an error.
>>
>
> Okay, then you can go ahead with your patch.
Thanks for the comment! I pushed the patch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-08-01 09:23:18 | Re: Slowness of extended protocol |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-08-01 08:23:46 | Re: Changed SRF in targetlist handling |