From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup option for handling symlinks |
Date: | 2012-01-16 18:52:35 |
Message-ID: | 1326739955.29466.5.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On sön, 2012-01-08 at 22:22 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 21:53, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > I've recently had a possible need for telling pg_basebackup how to
> > handle symlinks in the remote data directory, instead of ignoring them,
> > which is what currently happens. Possible options were recreating the
> > symlink locally (pointing to a file on the local system) or copying the
> > file the symlink points to. This is mainly useful in scenarios where
> > configuration files are symlinked from the data directory. Has anyone
> > else had the need for this? Is it worth pursuing?
>
> Yes.
>
> I came up to the same issue though - in one case it would've been best
> to copy the link, in the other case it would've been best to copy the
> contents of the file :S Couldn't decide which was most important...
> Maybe a switch would be needed?
Yes. Do we need to preserve the third behavior of ignoring symlinks?
tar has an -h option that causes symlinks to be followed. The default
there is to archive the symlink itself.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-01-16 19:06:18 | Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY? |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-01-16 18:47:17 | Re: pgstat documentation tables |