On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen <a...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > At 2015-06-11 14:28:36 +0900, michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> After spending the night thinking about that, honestly, I think that >> we should go with (2) and keep the base backup as light-weight as >> possible and not bother about a GUC. > > OK. Then the patch I posted earlier should be sufficient.
Btw, one thing that 010_pg_basebackup.pl does not check is actually if the files filtered by basebackup.c are included or not in the base backup. We may want to add some extra checks regarding that... Especially with your patch that filters things depending on if log_directory is an absolute path or not. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
