On 11/29/17 12:46 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at
5:58 PM, Chris Travers <chris.travers@adjust.com> wrote:
>
> Please note that I am still -1 for using a methodology different than
> what is used for base backups with an inclusive method, and would much
> prefer an exclusive method by reusing the existing entries in
> basebackup.c. Still, I am the only one who expressed an opinion about
> this patch, so moved to next CF with waiting on author as status.
I'm also -1 on the inclusive methodology. Forgetting something in the
exclusion list just makes the process less efficient while forgetting
something in the inclusion list may mean breakage. Furthermore,
maintaining two lists does not sound like a good idea.
I worry that extensions using generic WAL might be writing in places we
don't expect and don't think manually adding inclusions is a good
solution as the requirement will not be obvious to the user.
Regards,
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net