Re: pg_basebackup wish list

From: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup wish list
Date: 2016-07-12 18:39:20
Message-ID: 20160712183920.GU31544@aart.rice.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:06:39AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 7/12/16 12:53 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >> The --help message for pg_basebackup says:
> >>
> >> -Z, --compress=0-9 compress tar output with given compression level
> >>
> >> But -Z0 is then rejected as 'invalid compression level "0"'. The real
> >> docs do say 1-9, only the --help message has this bug. Trivial patch
> >> attached.
> >
> > pg_dump --help and man page say it supports 0..9. Maybe we should make
> > that more consistent.
>
> pg_dump actually does support -Z0, though. Well, sort of. It outputs
> plain text. Rather than plain text wrapped in some kind of dummy gzip
> header, which is what I had naively expected.
>
> Is that what -Z0 in pg_basebackup should do as well, just output
> uncompressed tar data, and not add the ".gz" to the "base.tar" file
> name?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>

Hi,

Yes, please support the no compression option. It can be useful in
situations where the bottleneck is the compression itself (quite
easily done with zlib based options, another plug for a higher
performance option).

Regards,
Ken

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-07-12 18:40:37 Re: BUG #14245: Segfault on weird to_tsquery
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2016-07-12 18:06:39 Re: pg_basebackup wish list