From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Haribabu kommi <haribabu(dot)kommi(at)huawei(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: New option for pg_basebackup, to specify a different directory for pg_xlog |
Date: | 2013-11-27 05:05:15 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFN6J-10r5vFZ4EoisKwLqbv2tFLLDmMpitF95tRH7owA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Haribabu kommi
<haribabu(dot)kommi(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
> On 26 November 2013 23:11 Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Haribabu kommi
>> <haribabu(dot)kommi(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
>> > I tried using of stat'ing in two directories, which is having a
>> problem in windows.
>> > So modified old approach to detect limited errors. Updated patch
>> attached.
>> > This will detect and throw an error in the following scenarios.
>> > 1. pg_basebackup -D /home/data --xlogdir=/home/data 2. pg_basebackup
>> > -D data --xlogdir=/home/data -- home is the CWD 3. pg_basebackup -D
>> > ../data --xlogdir=/data -- home is the CWD
>> >
>> > Please let me know your suggestions.
>>
>> Checking only #1 and #2 cases looks sufficient to at least me. If we do
>> that, we can refactor the patch so that it reuses make_absolute_path()
>> instead of adding new functions, as pointed in upthread. Anyway, what
>> about committing the core patch (Updated version of core patch attached)
>> first? Then, we can discuss the check logic more.
>
> Yes it is fine. The core patch attached in the mail is working fine.
Okay. Committed!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-11-27 05:56:33 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-11-27 04:41:40 | Re: Assertions in PL/PgSQL |