On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote:
> 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.

Yeah.  I'm frankly pretty nervous about shipping 9.1 with this
problem, but note that I don't have a better idea.  I'd favor making
pg_basebackup emit a warning or maybe even remove the backup if it's
aborted midway through.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

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

Reply via email to