Re: pg_basebackup option for handling symlinks
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_basebackup option for handling symlinks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevEzzFpwUqgptf0Hu_enZwtsNQb6bbbRGQ0A-f8HYoUUeTA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_basebackup option for handling symlinks (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 19:52, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > On sön, 2012-01-08 at 22:22 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 21:53, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >> > I've recently had a possible need for telling pg_basebackup how to >> > handle symlinks in the remote data directory, instead of ignoring them, >> > which is what currently happens. Possible options were recreating the >> > symlink locally (pointing to a file on the local system) or copying the >> > file the symlink points to. This is mainly useful in scenarios where >> > configuration files are symlinked from the data directory. Has anyone >> > else had the need for this? Is it worth pursuing? >> >> Yes. >> >> I came up to the same issue though - in one case it would've been best >> to copy the link, in the other case it would've been best to copy the >> contents of the file :S Couldn't decide which was most important... >> Maybe a switch would be needed? > > Yes. Do we need to preserve the third behavior of ignoring symlinks? I don't think we do. > tar has an -h option that causes symlinks to be followed. The default > there is to archive the symlink itself. Seems like a reasonable pattern to follow (though I think using -h is a really bad idea, but the pattern of by default archiving the symlink itself) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: