On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 18:07, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> On 09.08.2011 18:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> How about making the new backup_label field optional? If absent, assume >>> current behavior. > >> That's how I actually did it in the patch. However, the problem wrt. >> requiring initdb is not the new field in backup_label, it's the new >> field in the control file. > > Yeah. I think it's too late to be fooling with pg_control for 9.1. > Just fix it in HEAD.
Should we add a note to the documentation of pg_basebackup in 9.1 telling people to take care about the failure case? Or add a signal handler in the pg_basebackup client emitting a warning about it? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
