Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-10-01 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 18 Sep 2017, at 23:18, Pierre Ducroquet wrote: > > On Monday, September 18, 2017 5:13:38 PM CEST Tom Lane wrote: >> Ryan Murphy writes: >>> Looked thru the diffs and it looks fine to me. >>> Changing a lot of a integer/long arguments that were

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-09-18 Thread Pierre Ducroquet
On Monday, September 18, 2017 5:13:38 PM CEST Tom Lane wrote: > Ryan Murphy writes: > > Looked thru the diffs and it looks fine to me. > > Changing a lot of a integer/long arguments that were being read directly > > via atoi / atol to be read as strings first, to give

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-09-18 Thread Tom Lane
Ryan Murphy writes: > Looked thru the diffs and it looks fine to me. > Changing a lot of a integer/long arguments that were being read directly via > atoi / atol > to be read as strings first, to give better error handling. > > This looks good to go to me. Reviewing this

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-09-17 Thread Ryan Murphy
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: tested, passed Documentation:not tested I applied this patch via patch -p1. (Had an issue using git

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-09-14 Thread Ryan Murphy
Great, thanks Pierre! I don't have a chance to try the patch tonight, but I will on the weekend if no one else beats me to it. On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:53 PM Pierre Ducroquet wrote: > On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 2:06:50 AM CEST Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > > On 05

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-09-13 Thread Pierre Ducroquet
On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 2:06:50 AM CEST Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > On 05 Jul 2017, at 08:32, Michael Paquier > > wrote:> > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote: > >> I tried to apply your patch to test it (though

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-09-12 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 05 Jul 2017, at 08:32, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote: >> I tried to apply your patch to test it (though reading Robert's last comment >> it seems we wish to have it adjusted before

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-07-05 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote: > I tried to apply your patch to test it (though reading Robert's last comment > it seems we wish to have it adjusted before committing)... but in any case I > was not able to apply your patch to the tip of the master

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-07-04 Thread Ryan Murphy
Hi Pierre, I tried to apply your patch to test it (though reading Robert's last comment it seems we wish to have it adjusted before committing)... but in any case I was not able to apply your patch to the tip of the master branch (my git apply failed). I'm setting this to Waiting On Author

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-05-01 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote: >> Here are the general guidelines about patch submission: >> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch >> And the best thing would be to register it to the next commit fest so >> as it does not get lost: >>

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-04-22 Thread Pierre Ducroquet
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 11:31:58 PM CEST Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote: > > Following your advice, I went through the source tree and cleaned up most > > instances of that pattern. > > I have attached the corresponding

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-04-22 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote: > Following your advice, I went through the source tree and cleaned up most > instances of that pattern. > I have attached the corresponding patch to this mail. > If you think this patch is indeed interesting, what

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-04-22 Thread Pierre Ducroquet
On Friday, April 14, 2017 8:59:03 AM CEST Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote: > > On Friday, April 14, 2017 8:44:37 AM CEST Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-04-14 Thread Pierre Ducroquet
On Friday, April 14, 2017 8:59:03 AM CEST Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote: > > On Friday, April 14, 2017 8:44:37 AM CEST Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-04-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote: > On Friday, April 14, 2017 8:44:37 AM CEST Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet > wrote: >> > Yesterday while doing a few pg_basebackup, I realized that the

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-04-14 Thread Pierre Ducroquet
On Friday, April 14, 2017 8:44:37 AM CEST Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote: > > Yesterday while doing a few pg_basebackup, I realized that the integer > > parameters were not properly checked against invalid input. > > It is

Re: [HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-04-13 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Pierre Ducroquet wrote: > Yesterday while doing a few pg_basebackup, I realized that the integer > parameters were not properly checked against invalid input. > It is not a critical issue, but this could be misleading for an user who > writes

[HACKERS] Small patch for pg_basebackup argument parsing

2017-04-13 Thread Pierre Ducroquet
Hi Yesterday while doing a few pg_basebackup, I realized that the integer parameters were not properly checked against invalid input. It is not a critical issue, but this could be misleading for an user who writes -z max or -s 0.5… I've attached the patch to this mail. Should I add it to the next