On Oct 3, 2013 2:47 AM, "Michael Paquier" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Magnus Hagander <[email protected]> wrote: > > Right now, if you use > > > > pg_basebackup -Ft -D - > > > > you get a tarfile, written to stdout, for redirection. > > > > However, if you use: > > > > pg_basebackup -Fp -D - > > > > you get a plaintext (unpackaged) backup, in a directory called "-". > > > > I can't think of a single usecase where this is a good idea. Therefor, > > I would suggest we simply throw an error in this case, instead of > > creating the directory. Only for the specific case of specifying > > exactly "-" as a directory. > > > > Comments? > Isn't this a non-problem? This behavior is in line with the > documentation, so I would suspected that if directory name is > specified as "-" in plain mode, it should create the folder with this > name. > Do you consider having a folder of this name an annoyance?
Yes, that is exactly the point - i do consider that an annoyance, and i don't see the use case where you'd actually want it. I bet 100% of the users of that have been accidental, thinking they'd get the pipe, not the directory. > > Also, if we do that, is this something we should consider > > backpatchable? It's not strictly speaking a bugfix, but I'd say it > > fixes some seriously annoying behavior. > This would change the spec of pg_basebackup, so no? Does the current > behavior have potential security issues? No, there are no security issues that I can see. Just annoyance. And yes, I guess it would change the spec, so backpatching might be a bad idea.. /Magnus
