| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| 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>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: should pg_basebackup be listed as a server application? |
| Date: | 2011-05-07 21:38:18 |
| Message-ID: | 1304804298.15989.31.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On fre, 2011-05-06 at 20:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure if the notion of an "administrative" app helps
> much, but for sure I've never been satisfied with the equation of "can
> in principle execute remotely" with "client". This is a good time to
> be rethinking that.
One piece of supporting evidence that has been moderately useful over
the years is that what we list as server applications are dependent on a
particular major version (or the dependency closure of that, to include
pg_ctl), whereas clients work with multiple server versions to varying
degrees.
And another, possibly equivalent, factor is that what you see under
"server" is that it packaged in the server package, and what is under
"client" is packaged in the client package. That's kind of useful for
quickly finding what to install.
So where would pg_basebackup fit in according to these two criteria?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-05-08 02:25:32 | Re: many contrib links are broken |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-05-07 20:52:50 | Re: many contrib links are broken |