| From: | Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)it> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gilles Darold <gilles(dot)darold(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch pg_is_in_backup() |
| Date: | 2012-05-02 17:53:21 |
| Message-ID: | 4FA17491.4040406@2ndQuadrant.it |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Gilles,
Sorry for the delay.
Il 03/04/12 14:21, Gilles Darold ha scritto:
> +1, this is also my point of view.
I have looked at the patch that contains both pg_is_in_backup() and
pg_backup_start_time().
From a functional point of view it looks fine to me. I was thinking
of adding the BackupInProgress() at the beginning of
pg_backup_start_time(), but the AllocateFile() function already make
sure the file exists.
I have performed some basic testing of both functions and tried to
inject invalid characters in the start time field of the backup_label
file and it is handled (with an exception) by the server. Cool.
I spotted though some formatting issues, in particular indentation
and multi-line comments. Some rows are longer than 80 chars.
Please resubmit with these cosmetic changes and it is fine with me.
Thank you.
Cheers,
Gabriele
--
Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)it | www.2ndQuadrant.it
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-05-02 18:04:59 | Re: plpython crash (PG 92) |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-05-02 17:42:47 | Re: Have we out-grown Flex? |