Re: Prevent pg_basebackup -Fp -D -?

<p dir="ltr"><br /> On Oct 3, 2013 2:47 AM, "Michael Paquier" <<a
href="mailto:michael.paquier@gmail.com">michael.paquier@gmail.com</a>>wrote:<br /> ><br /> > On Wed, Oct 2,
2013at 11:31 PM, Magnus Hagander <<a href="mailto:magnus@hagander.net">magnus@hagander.net</a>> wrote:<br /> >
>Right now, if you use<br /> > ><br /> > > pg_basebackup -Ft -D -<br /> > ><br /> > > you
geta tarfile, written to stdout, for redirection.<br /> > ><br /> > > However, if you use:<br /> >
><br/> > > pg_basebackup -Fp -D -<br /> > ><br /> > > you get a plaintext (unpackaged) backup, in
adirectory called "-".<br /> > ><br /> > > I can't think of a single usecase where this is a good idea.
Therefor,<br/> > > I would suggest we simply throw an error in this case, instead of<br /> > > creating the
directory.Only for the specific case of specifying<br /> > > exactly "-" as a directory.<br /> > ><br />
>> Comments?<br /> > Isn't this a non-problem? This behavior is in line with the<br /> > documentation, so
Iwould suspected that if directory name is<br /> > specified as "-" in plain mode, it should create the folder with
this<br/> > name.<br /> > Do you consider having a folder of this name an annoyance?<p dir="ltr">Yes, that is
exactlythe 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. <br /><p dir="ltr">>
>Also, if we do that, is this something we should consider<br /> > > backpatchable? It's not strictly speaking
abugfix, but I'd say it<br /> > > fixes some seriously annoying behavior.<br /> > This would change the spec
ofpg_basebackup, so no? Does the current<br /> > behavior have potential security issues?<p dir="ltr">No, there are
nosecurity issues that I can see. Just annoyance. And yes, I guess it would change the spec, so backpatching might be a
badidea.. <br /><p dir="ltr">/Magnus