On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:44, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 10.08.2011 12:29, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 18:07, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> On 09.08.2011 18:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How about making the new backup_label field optional? If absent,
>>>>> assume
>>>>> current behavior.
>>>
>>>> That's how I actually did it in the patch. However, the problem wrt.
>>>> requiring initdb is not the new field in backup_label, it's the new
>>>> field in the control file.
>>>
>>> Yeah. I think it's too late to be fooling with pg_control for 9.1.
>>> Just fix it in HEAD.
>>
>> Should we add a note to the documentation of pg_basebackup in 9.1
>> telling people to take care about the failure case?
>
> Something like "Note: if you abort the backup before it's finished, the
> backup won't be valid" ? That seems pretty obvious to me, hardly worth
> documenting.
I meant something more along the line of that it looks ok, but may be corrupted.
>> Or add a signal
>> handler in the pg_basebackup client emitting a warning about it?
>
> We don't have such a signal handler pg_dump either. I don't think we should
> add it.
Hmm. I guess an aborted pg_dump will also "look ok but actually be
corrupt" (or incomplete). Good point.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/