On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 12:57 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:38 AM Jeevan Chalke > <jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > I am still not sure why we need SEND_BACKUP_FILELIST as a separate > command. > > Can't we return the file list with START_BACKUP itself? > > I had the same thought, but I think it's better to keep them separate. > Somebody might want to use the SEND_BACKUP_FILELIST command for > something other than a backup (I actually think it should be called > just SEND_FILE_LIST) Sure. Thanks for the recommendation. To keep the function names in sync, I intend to do following the following renamings: - SEND_BACKUP_FILES --> SEND_FILES - SEND_BACKUP_FILELIST --> SEND_FILE_LIST . Somebody might want to start a backup without > getting a file list because they're going to copy the files at the FS > level. Somebody might want to get a list of files to process after > somebody else has started the backup on another connection. Or maybe > nobody wants to do any of those things, but it doesn't seem to cost us > much of anything to split the commands, so I think we should. > +1 -- Asif Rehman Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan) URL : www.highgo.ca
