On 2020-Apr-13, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 11:52:51AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > Since I'm not sure about the work flow that contains taking a > > basebackup from a server of a different version, I'm not sure which is > > better between silently disabling and erroring out. However, it seems > > to me, the option for replication slot is a choice of the way the tool > > works which doesn't affect the result itself, but that for backup > > manifest is about what the resulting backup contains. Therefore I > > think it is better that pg_basebackup in PG13 should error out if the > > source server doesn't support backup manifest but --no-manifest is not > > specfied, and show how to accomplish their wants (, though I don't see > > the wants clearly). > > Not sure what Robert and other authors of the feature think about > that. What I am rather afraid of is somebody deciding to patch a > script aimed at working across multiple backend versions to add > unconditionally --no-manifest all the time, even for v13. That would > kill the purpose of encouraging the use of manifests.
I agree, I think forcing users to specify --no-manifest when run on old servers will cause users to write bad scripts; I vote for silently disabling checksums. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
