On 2015-06-11 PM 02:20, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > At 2015-06-10 13:22:27 -0400, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> (1) include pg_log in pg_basebackup as we do currently >> (2) exclude it >> (3) add a switch controlling whether or not it gets excluded >> >> I can live with (3), but I bet most people want (2). > > Thanks for spelling out the options. > > I strongly prefer (2), but I could live with (3) if it were done as a > GUC setting. (And if that's what we decide to do, I'm willing to write > up the patch.) > > Whether or not it's a good idea to let one's logfiles grow to >8GB, the > fact that doing so breaks base backups means that being able to exclude > pg_log *somehow* is more of a necessity than personal preference. > > On the other hand, I don't like the idea of doing (3) by adding command > line arguments to pg_basebackup and adding a new option to the command. > I don't think that level of "flexibility" is justified; it would also > make it easier to end up with a broken base backup (by inadvertently > excluding more than you meant to). >
Maybe a combination of (2) and part of (3). In absence of any command line argument, the behavior is (2), to exclude. Provide an option to *include* it (-S/--serverlog). Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
