| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |
| Date: | 2011-01-16 18:03:23 |
| Message-ID: | 9766.1295201003@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 18:59, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Just stick with the OID. There's no reason that I can see to have
>> "friendly" names for these tarfiles --- in most cases, the DBA will
>> never even deal with them, no?
> No, this is the output mode where the DBA chooses to get the output in
> the form of tarfiles. So if chosen, he will definitely deal with it.
Mph. How big a use-case has that got? Offhand I can't see a reason to
use it at all, ever. If you're trying to set up a clone you want the
files unpacked.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-01-16 18:04:18 | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-01-16 18:00:46 | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |