Re: should pg_basebackup be listed as a server application?

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of vie may 06 14:30:27 -0300 2011:
>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 19:18, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> > The pg_basebackup reference page is currently under "Client
>> > Applications" [0].  I think it's more of a server application, because
>> > it's what you'd run instead of initdb on the server.  Should it be moved
>> > to the "Server Applications" section?
>>
>> Not sure I buy that argument. pg_dump/pg_dumpall/pg_restore are under
>> client applications. They're something you run *alongside* initdb and
>> not instead, sure.. But they're all backup tools.
>
> Is there really a dichotomy here? Client/server?  Maybe we just need
> another category, "administrative applications" or something like that.

You can draw a clear line between applications which can connect to a
server remotely, and those which need to be executed on the actual
server machine, and thus distinguish "Client" from "Server"
Applications. If we use that logic, I think pg_config should be listed
as a "Server Application" and pg_basebackup should remain a "Client
Application", and we'd be consistent.

I think trying to break the Client Applications down into
administrative and non-administrative isn't very helpful -- the only
client applications I see which are clearly non-administrative (i.e.
non-superusers would normally use) are psql and ecpg. Everything else
seems like stuff you either generally need superuser privs for
(create*, drop*, etc.) or are tools typically used by the server admin
(taking and restoring backups).

Josh