On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > 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.
Yeah. I'm frankly pretty nervous about shipping 9.1 with this problem, but note that I don't have a better idea. I'd favor making pg_basebackup emit a warning or maybe even remove the backup if it's aborted midway through. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
