On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> >> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>> I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause
> issues for
> >>>
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause issues for
>>> translations, right? So we should make it head only?
>> We've had the argument a number of
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > >
> > > > printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n"
> > > > - "
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >
> > > printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n"
> > > - " write recovery.conf
> > after backup\n"));
> >
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> > printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n"
> > - " write recovery.conf
> after backup\n"));
> > + "
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n"
> - " write recovery.conf after
> backup\n"));
> + " write recovery.conf for
> replication\n"));
> printf(_(" -S,
The current help text for pg_basebackup -R is "write recovery.conf after
backup".
This says nothing about what it actually does. I've had a number of people
ask me now why that's not default "because you need a recovery.conf to
restore from backup". The point being that it doesn't say anything