Re: pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On 11/20/2014 02:27 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> > <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com <mailto:alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>> wrote:
> > >> Right, but they provide same functionality as symlinks and now we
> > >> are even planing to provide this feature for both linux and
> windows as
> > >> both Tom and Robert seems to feel, it's better that way. Anyhow,
> > >> I think naming any entity generally differs based on individual's
> > >> perspective, so we can go with the name which appeals to more people.
> > >> In case, nobody else has any preference, I will change it to what
> both
> > >> of us can agree upon (either 'tablespace catalog',
> 'tablespace_info' ...).
> > >
> > > Well, I have made my argument. Since you're the submitter, feel
> free to
> > > select what you think is the best name.
> >
> > For what it's worth, I, too, dislike having symlink in the name.
> > Maybe "tablespace_map"?
>
> Sounds good to me as well.
>
> To summarize the situation of this patch, I have received below comments
> on which I am planning to work:
>
> 1. Change the name of file containing tablespace path information.
> 2. Store tablespace name as well along with oid and path to make the
> information Human readable.
> 3. Make the code generic (Remove #ifdef Win32 macro's and change
> comments referring this functionality for windows and see if any more
> changes are required to make it work on linux.)
>
> Now the part where I would like to receive feedback before revising the
> patch is on the coding style. It seems to me from Tom's comments that
> he is not happy with the code, now I am not sure which part of the patch
> he thinks needs change. Tom if possible, could you be slightly more
> specific about your concern w.r.t code?
>
> I have attached a rebased (on top of commit-8d7af8f) patch, just incase
> some one wants to apply and check it.
>

In view of the request above for comments from Tom, I have moved this
back to "Needs Review".

cheers

andrew