| From: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: should pg_basebackup be listed as a server application? |
| Date: | 2011-05-09 19:28:42 |
| Message-ID: | 4DC8406A.5070309@timbira.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Em 06-05-2011 21:18, Tom Lane escreveu:
> I also tend to agree with Alvaro that a lot of the stuff that falls on
> the "client" side of the fence when using the strict "can it be executed
> remotely" test
>
I think this idea is strict from docs [1] ("The common feature of these
applications is that they can be run on any host, independent of where the
database server resides."). I agree that is not a good way to categorize
binaries but who bothers? (It is only two categories.)
It seems logical that all "clients" use some postgresql library. So I would
put pg_basebackup on the "client" side of the fence.
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/reference-client.html
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira - Timbira http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-05-10 01:04:49 | Re: boolean states |
| Previous Message | Grzegorz Szpetkowski | 2011-05-09 18:12:13 | Re: ALTER TABLE doc small thing |