From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Ian Barwick <ian(dot)barwick(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] minor bugfix for pg_basebackup (9.6 ~ ) |
Date: | 2019-07-22 07:36:00 |
Message-ID: | 20190722073600.GE1757@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 10:04:19AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> This restriction is unlikely going to be removed, still I would rather
> keep the escaped logic in pg_basebackup. This is the usual,
> recommended coding pattern, and there is a risk that folks refer to
> this code block for their own fancy stuff, spreading the problem. The
> intention behind the code is to use an escaped name as well. For
> those reasons your patch is fine by me.
Attempting to use a slot with an unsupported set of characters will
lead beforehand to a failure when trying to fetch the WAL segments
with START_REPLICATION, meaning that this spot will never be reached
and that there is no active bug, but for the sake of consistency I see
no problems with applying the fix on HEAD. So, are there any
objections with that?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Edmund Horner | 2019-07-22 07:44:49 | Re: Tid scan improvements |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2019-07-22 07:24:51 | Re: Tid scan improvements |