On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 19:03, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
Yes, but the tool isn't just for setting up a clone.
If you're doing a regular base backup, that's *not* for replication,
you might want them in files.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-01-16 18:08:03|
|Subject: Re: We need to log aborted autovacuums |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-01-16 18:03:23|
|Subject: Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |