On Mon, Feb 21, 2022, at 8:28 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > I think the system identifier should also be changed, otherwise you can way > too easily get into situations trying to apply WAL from different systems to > each other. Not going to end well, obviously. Good point.
> > This tool does not take a base backup. It can certainly be included later. > > There is already a tool do it: pg_basebackup. > > It would make sense to allow to call pg_basebackup from the new tool. Perhaps > with a --pg-basebackup-parameters or such. Yeah. I'm planning to do that in a near future. There are a few questions in my mind. Should we call the pg_basebackup directly (like pglogical_create_subscriber does) or use a base backup machinery to obtain the backup? If we choose the former, it should probably sanitize the --pg-basebackup-parameters to allow only a subset of the command-line options (?). AFAICS the latter requires some refactors in the pg_basebackup code -- e.g. expose at least one function (BaseBackup?) that accepts a struct of command-line options as a parameter and returns success/failure. Another possibility is to implement a simple BASE_BACKUP command via replication protocol. The disadvantages are: (a) it could duplicate code and (b) it might require maintenance if new options are added to the BASE_BACKUP command. -- Euler Taveira EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
