Re: [HACKERS] Prevent pg_basebackup -Fp -D -?
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:10 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 06:50:57AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Oct 3, 2013 2:47 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net 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.. Has this been fixed? If so, I don't see it. It has not. I think the thread wasn't entirely clear on if we wanted it or not, which is why I was waiting for more input from others. And then promptly forgot about it since nobody spoke up :) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Re: [HACKERS] Prevent pg_basebackup -Fp -D -?
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 06:50:57AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Oct 3, 2013 2:47 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net 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.. Has this been fixed? If so, I don't see it. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Prevent pg_basebackup -Fp -D -?
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? 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. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Prevent pg_basebackup -Fp -D -?
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net 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? 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? My 2c. Regards, -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Prevent pg_basebackup -Fp -D -?
On 10/02/2013 05:47 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net 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? I can see fixing this going forwards, but it doesn't seem worth backpatching. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Prevent pg_basebackup -Fp -D -?
On Oct 3, 2013 2:47 AM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net 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
