On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 9/13/16 7:24 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> PostgresNode.pm had better use the new --noclean option in its calls,
>> the new default is not useful for debugging.
>
> We don't do it for initdb either. Is that a problem?
Right. In case o
On 9/13/16 7:24 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> PostgresNode.pm had better use the new --noclean option in its calls,
> the new default is not useful for debugging.
We don't do it for initdb either. Is that a problem?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Developm
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 9/12/16 3:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, there was just a kerfuffle about spelling things like this
>> "--no-clean" etc. I wasn't on board with removing existing spellings,
>> but surely all newly added switches should use the "no-" spe
On 9/12/16 3:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm, there was just a kerfuffle about spelling things like this
> "--no-clean" etc. I wasn't on board with removing existing spellings,
> but surely all newly added switches should use the "no-" spelling?
This is supposed to be parallel to initdb's option. So
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 8/19/16 1:04 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> I agree with adding this as an option and removing directory by default.
>> And it looks good to me except for missing new line in usage output.
>>
>> printf(_(" -l, --label=LABEL set backup label\n"));
>> + prin
On 8/19/16 1:04 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I agree with adding this as an option and removing directory by default.
> And it looks good to me except for missing new line in usage output.
>
> printf(_(" -l, --label=LABEL set backup label\n"));
> + printf(_(" -n, --noclean
On 19 August 2016 at 08:46, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>> I agree with adding this as an option and removing directory by default.
>> And it looks good to me except for missing new line in usage output.
>>
>> printf(_(" -l, --label
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I agree with adding this as an option and removing directory by default.
> And it looks good to me except for missing new line in usage output.
>
> printf(_(" -l, --label=LABEL set backup label\n"));
> + printf(_(" -n,
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 7/12/16 9:55 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> And what I think is pg_baseback never remove the directory specified
>> by -D option even if execution is failed. initdb command behaves so.
>> I think it's helpful for backup operation.
>
> Th
On 7/12/16 9:55 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> And what I think is pg_baseback never remove the directory specified
> by -D option even if execution is failed. initdb command behaves so.
> I think it's helpful for backup operation.
This has been bothering me as well.
How about the attached patch as
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>>> wrote:
On 7/12/16 12:53 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> The --help message
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Amit Kapila
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think there is some value in providing
>>> .tar for -Z 0,
>>
>> I was thinking that "-Ft -Z0" is something like an alias
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> I think there is some value in providing
>> .tar for -Z 0,
>
> I was thinking that "-Ft -Z0" is something like an alias of "-Ft".
> That is, the backup is taken in uncompressed tar form
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>> Maybe I failed to parse his proposal. It's helpful if you elaborate it.
>>
>
> As per mail [1], it seems the proposal is not to use .tar for -Z 0.
I was thinking that the proposal is
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> Maybe I failed to parse his proposal. It's helpful if you elaborate it.
>
As per mail [1], it seems the proposal is not to use .tar for -Z 0.
Now here actually we are on the fence, one can argue that if user
doesn't want compression, he or s
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>>> wrote:
On 7/12/16 12:53 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> The --help message
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>>> On 7/12/16 12:53 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
The --help message for pg_basebackup says:
-Z, --compress=0-9 co
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>> wrote:
>>> On 7/12/16 12:53 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
The --help message for pg_basebackup says:
-Z, --compress=0-9 com
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> 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
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I've been having some adventures with pg_basebackup lately, and had
> some suggestions based on those.
>
> The --help message for pg_basebackup says:
>
> -Z, --compress=0-9 compress tar output with given compression level
>
> But -Z0 is the
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I've been having some adventures with pg_basebackup lately, and had
> some suggestions based on those.
And what I think is pg_baseback never remove the directory specified
by -D option even if execution is failed. initdb command behaves so.
I t
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:06:39AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> 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
> >
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut
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 rea
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. Triv
I've been having some adventures with pg_basebackup lately, and had
some suggestions based on those.
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 s
25 matches
Mail list logo