Michael Paquier 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. (3) would need some extra > intelligence to decide if some files can be skipped or not. Imagine > for example --skip-files=global/pg_control or --skip-files=pg_clog > (because it *is* a log file with much data), that would just corrupt > silently your backup, but I guess that it is what you had in mind. In > any case (3) is not worth the maintenance burden because we would need > to update the things to filter each time a new important folder is > added in PGDATA by a patch.
If somebody sets log_directory=pg_clog/ they are screwed pretty badly, aren't they. (I guess this is just a case of "don't do that"). -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
