<p dir="ltr"><br /> On Jun 11, 2015 7:38 AM, "Amit Langote" <<a
href="mailto:Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp">Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp</a>>wrote:<br /> ><br /> > On
2015-06-11PM 02:20, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:<br /> > > At 2015-06-10 13:22:27 -0400, <a
href="mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com">robertmhaas@gmail.com</a>wrote:<br /> > >><br /> > >> (1) include
pg_login pg_basebackup as we do currently<br /> > >> (2) exclude it<br /> > >> (3) add a switch
controllingwhether or not it gets excluded<br /> > >><br /> > >> I can live with (3), but I bet most
peoplewant (2).<br /> > ><br /> > > Thanks for spelling out the options.<br /> > ><br /> > > I
stronglyprefer (2), but I could live with (3) if it were done as a<br /> > > GUC setting. (And if that's what we
decideto do, I'm willing to write<br /> > > up the patch.)<br /> > ><br /> > > Whether or not it's a
goodidea to let one's logfiles grow to >8GB, the<br /> > > fact that doing so breaks base backups means that
beingable to exclude<br /> > > pg_log *somehow* is more of a necessity than personal preference.<br /> >
><br/> > > On the other hand, I don't like the idea of doing (3) by adding command<br /> > > line
argumentsto pg_basebackup and adding a new option to the command.<br /> > > I don't think that level of
"flexibility"is justified; it would also<br /> > > make it easier to end up with a broken base backup (by
inadvertently<br/> > > excluding more than you meant to).<br /> > ><br /> ><br /> > Maybe a
combinationof (2) and part of (3). In absence of any command line<br /> > argument, the behavior is (2), to exclude.
Providean option to *include* it<br /> > (-S/--serverlog)<br /><p dir="ltr">I think it's useful enough to have a
switch,but no problem to exclude it by default. So I can definitely go for Amits suggestions. <p dir="ltr">I also don't
feelstrongly enough about it to put up any kind of fight if the majority wants different :-)<p dir="ltr">/Magnus