On 10.08.2011 12:29, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 18:07, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>  wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com>  writes:
On 09.08.2011 18:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
How about making the new backup_label field optional?  If absent, assume
current behavior.

That's how I actually did it in the patch. However, the problem wrt.
requiring initdb is not the new field in backup_label, it's the new
field in the control file.

Yeah.  I think it's too late to be fooling with pg_control for 9.1.
Just fix it in HEAD.

Should we add a note to the documentation of pg_basebackup in 9.1
telling people to take care about the failure case?

Something like "Note: if you abort the backup before it's finished, the backup won't be valid" ? That seems pretty obvious to me, hardly worth documenting.

Or add a signal
handler in the pg_basebackup client emitting a warning about it?

We don't have such a signal handler pg_dump either. I don't think we should add it.

  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to