> Fiona Ebner <f.eb...@proxmox.com> hat am 13.11.2024 12:40 CET geschrieben:
>
>
> On 13.11.24 12:16 PM, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> > On November 13, 2024 10:22 am, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> >> On 12.11.24 5:46 PM, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> >>> On November 7, 2024 5:51 pm, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> >>>> + backup_state.target_id = g_strdup("Proxmox");
> >>>
> >>> if we take this opportunity to also support multiple PBS targets while
> >>> we are at it, it might make sense to make this more of a "legacy" value?
> >>> or not set it at all here to opt into the legacy behaviour?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Why isn't "Proxmox" a good legacy value? When we add support for passing
> >> in a target ID to qmp_backup(), I had in mind using "PBS-$storeid" or
> >> something along those lines.
> >
> > because it might clash with actual target IDs? that's why I thought that
> > maybe not setting it at all in that case provides more flexibility to
> > differentiate..
>
> I don't like the special casing that would entail in the C code. Having
> it always set regardless of legacy or not is nicer.
>
> How about we fix this on the qemu-server side by passing
> "snapshot-access:$storeid" and, in the future, "pbs:$storeid", as
> "target-id" values to QMP?
that sounds like an okay approach as well! :)
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
