| From: | Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jelte Fennema <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Tristen Raab <tristen(dot)raab(at)highgo(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Jelte Fennema <github-tech(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
| Subject: | Re: Allow specifying a dbname in pg_basebackup connection string |
| Date: | 2023-08-29 23:01:39 |
| Message-ID: | c94413f9-4ae4-daa9-5897-785b83186ec9@uni-muenster.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Jelte
On 29.08.23 15:55, Jelte Fennema wrote:
> Thanks for the review. I've updated the documentation to make it
> clearer (using some of your suggestions but also some others)
This patch applies and builds cleanly, and the documentation is very clear.
I tested it using the 'replication-support' branch from your github fork:
/pg_basebackup --dbname "port=6432 user=postgres dbname=foo" -D /tmp/dump1/
pgbouncer log:
/2023-08-30 00:50:52.866 CEST [811770] LOG C-0x555fbd65bf40:
(nodb)/postgres(at)unix(811776):6432 login attempt: db=foo user=postgres
tls=no replication=yes/
However, pgbouncer closes with a segmentation fault, so I couldn't test
the result of pg_basebackup itself - but I guess it isn't the issue here.
Other than that, everything looks good to me.
Jim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-08-29 23:05:57 | Re: Avoid a possible overflow (src/backend/utils/sort/logtape.c) |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-08-29 22:56:33 | Re: Wrong usage of pqMsg_Close message code? |