On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I don't understand why we need to change pg_control for this?

Why can't we just add a line to backup_label as the first action of
pg_basebackup and then updated it the last action to show the backup
set is complete?

That would be safe for 9.1

 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

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

Reply via email to