> 8 мая 2015 г., в 16:11, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> написал(а): > > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi <mailto:hlinn...@iki.fi>) wrote: >> On 05/08/2015 03:39 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: >>>> On 05/08/2015 03:25 PM, Vladimir Borodin wrote: >>>>> Seems, that pg_rewind does not account --dry-run option properly. A simple >>>>> fix >>>>> for that is attached. >>>> >>>> >>>> No, the --dry-run takes effect later. It performs all the actions it >>>> normally would, including reading files from the source, except for >>>> actually >>>> writing anything in the target. See the dry-run checks in file_ops.c
Urgh, my test script had an error and I made grep only in pg_rewind.c. Sorry for noise. >>> >>> Even if the patch sent is incorrect, shouldn't there be some process >>> bypass in updateControlFile() and createBackupLabel() in case of a >>> --dry-run? >> >> They both use open_target_file() and write_target_file(), which >> check for --dry-run and do nothing if it's set. >> >> Hmm, I wonder it we should print something else than "Done!" at the >> end, if run in --dry-run mode. Or give some indication around the >> time it says "Rewinding from last common checkpoint at ...", that >> it's running in dry-run mode and won't actually modify anything. The >> progress messages are a bit alarming if you don't realize that it's >> skipping all the writes. That would be really nice. > > Wouldn't hurt to also augment that rather doom-looking "point of no > return" comment with a note that says writes won't happen if in > dry-run. :) > > For my 2c anyway. > > Thanks! > > Stephen -- May the force be with you… https://simply.name
