On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 23:38, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > 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?
It should work with different versions of the server. It will require a 9.1 or newer server, but I see no reason why pg_basebackup 9.2 shouldn't work with a 9.1 server, for example. I'm not sure if it'd go in a server or client RPM though, I'll let a packager comment on that part. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
