Re: should pg_basebackup be listed as a server application?
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: should pg_basebackup be listed as a server application? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1304804298.15989.31.camel@vanquo.pezone.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: should pg_basebackup be listed as a server application? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: should pg_basebackup be listed as a server application?
|
Список | pgsql-docs |
On fre, 2011-05-06 at 20:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not entirely sure if the notion of an "administrative" app helps > much, but for sure I've never been satisfied with the equation of "can > in principle execute remotely" with "client". This is a good time to > be rethinking that. One piece of supporting evidence that has been moderately useful over the years is that what we list as server applications are dependent on a particular major version (or the dependency closure of that, to include pg_ctl), whereas clients work with multiple server versions to varying degrees. And another, possibly equivalent, factor is that what you see under "server" is that it packaged in the server package, and what is under "client" is packaged in the client package. That's kind of useful for quickly finding what to install. So where would pg_basebackup fit in according to these two criteria?
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: