On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 19:52, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On sön, 2012-01-08 at 22:22 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 21:53, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> > I've recently had a possible need for telling pg_basebackup how to
>> > handle symlinks in the remote data directory, instead of ignoring them,
>> > which is what currently happens. Possible options were recreating the
>> > symlink locally (pointing to a file on the local system) or copying the
>> > file the symlink points to. This is mainly useful in scenarios where
>> > configuration files are symlinked from the data directory. Has anyone
>> > else had the need for this? Is it worth pursuing?
>> I came up to the same issue though - in one case it would've been best
>> to copy the link, in the other case it would've been best to copy the
>> contents of the file :S Couldn't decide which was most important...
>> Maybe a switch would be needed?
> Yes. Do we need to preserve the third behavior of ignoring symlinks?
I don't think we do.
> tar has an -h option that causes symlinks to be followed. The default
> there is to archive the symlink itself.
Seems like a reasonable pattern to follow (though I think using -h is
a really bad idea, but the pattern of by default archiving the symlink
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2012-01-20 14:34:31|
|Subject: Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2012-01-20 14:29:28|
|Subject: Re: our buffer replacement strategy is kind of lame|