On Jun 11, 2015 7:38 AM, "Amit Langote" <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > 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)
I think it's useful enough to have a switch, but no problem to exclude it by default. So I can definitely go for Amits suggestions. I also don't feel strongly enough about it to put up any kind of fight if the majority wants different :-) /Magnus
