On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:44, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 10.08.2011 12:29, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> 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? > > Something like "Note: if you abort the backup before it's finished, the > backup won't be valid" ? That seems pretty obvious to me, hardly worth > documenting.
I meant something more along the line of that it looks ok, but may be corrupted. >> Or add a signal >> handler in the pg_basebackup client emitting a warning about it? > > We don't have such a signal handler pg_dump either. I don't think we should > add it. Hmm. I guess an aborted pg_dump will also "look ok but actually be corrupt" (or incomplete). Good point. -- 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
