Re: pg_basebackup wish list

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup wish list
Date: 2016-07-26 06:28:25
Message-ID: CAHGQGwG9C6OnBy0xbFfv-oWpxawo7kTHdgKG7m0JOjat4xZvxA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 7/12/16 12:53 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> The --help message for pg_basebackup says:
>>>
>>> -Z, --compress=0-9 compress tar output with given compression level
>>>
>>> But -Z0 is then rejected as 'invalid compression level "0"'. The real
>>> docs do say 1-9, only the --help message has this bug. Trivial patch
>>> attached.
>>
>> pg_dump --help and man page say it supports 0..9. Maybe we should make
>> that more consistent.
>
> pg_dump actually does support -Z0, though. Well, sort of. It outputs
> plain text. Rather than plain text wrapped in some kind of dummy gzip
> header, which is what I had naively expected.
>
> Is that what -Z0 in pg_basebackup should do as well, just output
> uncompressed tar data, and not add the ".gz" to the "base.tar" file
> name?

Yes, I think. What about the attached patch?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

Attachment Content-Type Size
basebackup_compression_level0.patch text/x-patch 1.3 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2016-07-26 07:48:16 Re: bug in citext's upgrade script for parallel aggregates
Previous Message Amit Langote 2016-07-26 04:51:53 Re: Constraint merge and not valid status