On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:44, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> 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.

I meant something more along the line of that it looks ok, but may be corrupted.

>> 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.

Hmm. I guess an aborted pg_dump will also "look ok but actually be
corrupt" (or incomplete). Good point.

 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

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

Reply via email to