Re: Refactoring of compression options in pg_basebackup

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Georgios Kokolatos <gkokolatos(at)pm(dot)me>
Subject: Re: Refactoring of compression options in pg_basebackup
Date: 2022-01-05 15:22:06
Message-ID: 43618.1641396126@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Oh, well, if we have a working tar available, then it's not so bad. I
> was thinking we couldn't really count on that, especially on Windows.

I think the existing precedent is to skip the test if tar isn't there,
cf pg_basebackup/t/010_pg_basebackup.pl. But certainly the majority of
buildfarm animals have it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2022-01-05 15:33:38 Re: Refactoring of compression options in pg_basebackup
Previous Message Robert Haas 2022-01-05 15:13:16 Re: Refactoring of compression options in pg_basebackup