On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>>> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>> On 7/12/16 12:53 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>>>> The --help message for pg_basebackup says:
>>>>> -Z, --compress=0-9     compress tar output with given compression level
>>>>> But -Z0 is then rejected as 'invalid compression level "0"'.  The real
>>>>> docs do say 1-9, only the --help message has this bug.  Trivial patch
>>>>> attached.
>>>> pg_dump --help and man page say it supports 0..9.  Maybe we should make
>>>> that more consistent.
>>> pg_dump actually does support -Z0, though.  Well, sort of.  It outputs
>>> plain text.  Rather than plain text wrapped in some kind of dummy gzip
>>> header, which is what I had naively expected.
>>> Is that what -Z0 in pg_basebackup should do as well, just output
>>> uncompressed tar data, and not add the ".gz" to the "base.tar" file
>>> name?
>> Yes, I think. What about the attached patch?
> What if user tries to use -Z 0 with format as tar, won't it generate
> base.tar without any compression?

Yes, with -Z 0 -F t options, the patched version of pg_basebackup generate
base.tar without compression.

> I am not sure if that is what Jeff
> intends to say in his proposal.

Maybe I failed to parse his proposal. It's helpful if you elaborate it.


Fujii Masao

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

Reply via email to