On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 11:14:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: >> I don't completely buy off on the argument that having these #define's >> would make it easier for forks (we've had quite a few folks fork PG, but >> how many of them have actually changed "base"?) and I'm on the fence >> about if these will make our lives simpler down the road when it comes >> to changing the directory names > > I am distressed that nobody, apparently, is putting any weight on the > back-patching pain that will result from widespread replacement of path > names with macros. I don't buy that either we or anyone else will need > to change these names in future, so I see pain and effectively no > gain.
That's actually something I worry about as well (as the author!), which is why I qualify the changes as intrusive. At the end, I think that I would be tempted to just do #3, aka to keep a copy of the filter list in pg_rewind code while hardcoding a minimum of names and mention in both basebackup.c and pg_rewind code to not forget to update the filter list if necessary. New paths in the data folder are not added on a monthly basis either, and not all of them can be filtered out so that's easy to maintain. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
