At Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:54:09 -0800, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote in > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 1:51 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> > wrote: > > I believe that the time required to estimate the backup size is not so large > > in most cases, so in the above idea, most users don't need to specify more > > option for the estimation. This is good for UI perspective. > > > > OTOH, users who are worried about the estimation time can use > > --no-estimate-backup-size option and skip the time-consuming estimation. > > Personally, I think this is the best idea. it brings a "reasonable > default", since most people are not going to have this problem, and > yet a good way to get out from the issue for those that potentially > have it. Especially since we are now already showing the state that > "walsender is estimating the size", it should be easy enugh for people > to determine if they need to use this flag or not. > > In nitpicking mode, I'd just call the flag --no-estimate-size -- it's > pretty clear things are about backups when you call pg_basebackup, and > it keeps the option a bit more reasonable in length.
I agree to the negative option and the shortened name. What if both --no-estimate-size and -P are specifed? Rejecting as conflicting options or -P supercedes? I would choose the former because we don't know which of them has priority. $ pg_basebackup --no-estimate-size -P pg_basebackup: -P requires size estimate. $ regads. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
