Re: pg_basebackup, manifests and backends older than ~12
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_basebackup, manifests and backends older than ~12 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobS1B5KfGxA5Em_FqK=0CJ+2EjNaQFdgprCKLM878mS1g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_basebackup, manifests and backends older than ~12 (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_basebackup, manifests and backends older than ~12
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 6:26 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > Well, the documentation tells me that as of protocol.sgml: > "For compatibility with previous releases, the default is > <literal>MANIFEST 'no'</literal>." > > The code also tells me that, in line with the docs: > static void > parse_basebackup_options(List *options, basebackup_options *opt) > [...] > MemSet(opt, 0, sizeof(*opt)); > opt->manifest = MANIFEST_OPTION_NO; > > And there is also a TAP test for that when passing down --no-manifest, > which should not create a backup manifest: > $node->command_ok( > [ > 'pg_basebackup', '-D', "$tempdir/backup2", '--no-manifest', > '--waldir', "$tempdir/xlog2" > ], > > So, it seems to me that it is fine to remove this block, as when > --no-manifest is used, then "manifest" gets set to false, and then it > does not matter if the MANIFEST clause is added or not as we'd just > rely on the default. Keeping the block would matter if you want to > make the code more robust to a change of the default value in the > BASE_BACKUP query though, and its logic is not incorrect either. So, > if you wish to keep it, that's fine by me, but it looks cleaner to me > to remove it and more consistent with the other options like MAX_RATE, > TABLESPACE_MAP, etc. Oh, hmm. Maybe I'm getting confused with a previous version of the patch that behaved differently. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: