Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-09-14 Thread Michael Paquier
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.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-09-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-09-13 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-09-13 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-09-12 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-09-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-09-01 Thread Simon Riggs
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-08-19 Thread Michael Paquier
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")); >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-08-18 Thread Masahiko Sawada
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-08-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-08-01 Thread Jeff Janes
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 >>>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-08-01 Thread Fujii Masao
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 >>>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-07-29 Thread Amit Kapila
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-07-28 Thread Fujii Masao
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-07-28 Thread Amit Kapila
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-07-28 Thread Fujii Masao
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 >>>

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-07-28 Thread Amit Kapila
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:

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-07-28 Thread Fujii Masao
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:

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-07-26 Thread Fujii Masao
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-07-13 Thread Amit Kapila
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-07-12 Thread Masahiko Sawada
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-07-12 Thread Kenneth Marshall
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-07-12 Thread Jeff Janes
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup wish list

2016-07-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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.