On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:59:04PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> Hm. There could be an argument for improving the user experience here >> so as some cleanup is at least attempted except if --no-clean is defined >> by the caller when --create-slot is used. Do we want an open item for >> this issue? > > Sounds like new development to me. This isn't a bug.
Still, it seems to me that the user experience is a bit horrible with this new interface of pg_basebackup. If --create-slot is used, then a slot is created before starting a backup. If the slot already exists, then pg_basebackup complains and exits. In order to drop the slot with a only user who has replication access rights (because nobody is really going to have a user who has SQL access so as the slot is dropped), then the only simple way is to use pg_receivewal --drop-slot, making the whole flow inconsistent. pg_basebackup is usually in server-side packages, and pg_receivewal is on the client side. The server packages requiring the client packages, then we are sure that pg_basebackup will drag in pg_receivewal. Still, shouldn't there be a --drop-slot option in pg_basebackup? In this case, if --drop-slot is used, then the slot is dropped and pg_basebackup exits immediately. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
