Re: pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> 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".
>

I am working on fixing the review comments, but I think I won't be
able to handle all as still there is discussion going on for some of
the comments, but I am intended to work on it for CF starting today.
So I have moved this patch to CF (2014-12).

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com