At Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:37:38 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in <CAB7nPqQU1H=pag3xbyffg9w+emeqfyadkep7cwvejukxtb_...@mail.gmail.com> > In my first reviews of the patch, I completely forgot the fact that > BASE_BACKUP does send the start LSN of the backup in the first result > set, so the patch proposed is actually rather useless because the data > you are looking for is already at hand. If more data would be > interesting to have, like the start timestamp number, we could just > extend the first result set a bit as Fujii-san is coming at. Let's > drop this patch and move on.
+1 for dropping this. But I think we should edit the documentation a bit. I don't fully understand those who want to handle it by a script, but the documentation seems to be suggesting that something like is possible. So it might be better add a description like that or just remove the example. "psql doesn't handle this protocol properly. The instances of the usage of these protocols are found in the source code of walreceiver and pg_basebackup." That being said, pg_basebackup is straightforward but unfortunately, walrecever.c seems a bit hard to read for those who unaccustomed to PostgresSQL source code. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
