On 2016-03-28 11:35:57 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > As pointed out in > > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160327232509.v5wgac5vskuse...@awork2.anarazel.de > > > our backup tools (i.e. pg_basebackup, pg_dump[all]), currently don't > > > make any efforts to ensure their output is durable. > > > > > > I think for backup tools of possibly critical data, that's pretty much > > > unaceptable. > > > > Definitely agreed, once a backup/dump has been taken and those > > utilities exit, we had better ensure that they are durably on disk. > > For pg_basebackup and pg_dump, as everything except pg_dump/plain > > require a target directory for the location of the output result, we > > really can make things better. > > > > > Definitely agreed on fixing it. But I don't think your summary is right. > > pg_basebackup in tar mode can be sent to stdout, does not require a > directory. And the same for pg_dump in any mode except for directory. So we > can't just drive it off the mode, some more detailed checks are required.
if (!isastty(stdout)) ought to do the trick, afaics? And maybe add a warning somewhere in the docs about the tools not fsyncing if you pipe their output data somewhere? Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
