Обсуждение: [HACKERS] Help text for pg_basebackup -R
The current help text for pg_basebackup -R is "write recovery.conf after backup".
This says nothing about what it actually does. I've had a number of people ask me now why that's not default "because you need a recovery.conf to restore from backup". The point being that it doesn't say anything about the fact that it writes the file *for replication*. The help page does, but not the message.
I propose a new message per the attached patch.
Comments?
Вложения
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n"
> - " write recovery.conf after backup\n"));
> + " write recovery.conf for replication\n"));
> printf(_(" -S, --slot=SLOTNAME replication slot to use\n"));
LGTM.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n"
> - " write recovery.conf after backup\n"));
> + " write recovery.conf for replication\n"));
> printf(_(" -S, --slot=SLOTNAME replication slot to use\n"));
LGTM.
I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause issues for translations, right? So we should make it head only?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >
> > > printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n"
> > > - " write recovery.conf
> > after backup\n"));
> > > + " write recovery.conf for
> > replication\n"));
> > > printf(_(" -S, --slot=SLOTNAME replication slot to use\n"));
> >
> > LGTM.
> >
> I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause issues for
> translations, right? So we should make it head only?
We've had the argument a number of times. My stand is that many
translators are active in the older branches, so this update would be
caught there too; and even if not, an updated English message is better
than an outdated native-language message.
Now, that's been argued in the context of a bug fix that introduces new
messages or changed an existing message for other reasons. I'm not sure
how strongly do we think it applies for a change that's *only* about
updating a message. I'm +0.5 on back-patching the change in this case.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > >
> > > > printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n"
> > > > - " write recovery.conf
> > > after backup\n"));
> > > > + " write recovery.conf for
> > > replication\n"));
> > > > printf(_(" -S, --slot=SLOTNAME replication slot to use\n"));
> > >
> > > LGTM.
> > >
> > I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause issues for
> > translations, right? So we should make it head only?
>
> We've had the argument a number of times. My stand is that many
> translators are active in the older branches, so this update would be
> caught there too; and even if not, an updated English message is better
> than an outdated native-language message.
That makes sense to me, at least, so +1, for my part. Of course, I'm
not a translation-using user, but I have heard from people when I've
spoken in other countries that a correct english message is better than
outdated native-language messages, and further, that having the English
message makes it easier to get Google results.
Thanks!
Stephen
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause issues for
>>> translations, right? So we should make it head only?
>> We've had the argument a number of times. My stand is that many
>> translators are active in the older branches, so this update would be
>> caught there too; and even if not, an updated English message is better
>> than an outdated native-language message.
> That makes sense to me, at least, so +1, for my part.
Yeah, if the existing message text is actually wrong or misleading,
we should back-patch. I'm not sure I would do that if it's just a
cosmetic improvement. In this particular case, +1.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause issues for
>>> translations, right? So we should make it head only?
>> We've had the argument a number of times. My stand is that many
>> translators are active in the older branches, so this update would be
>> caught there too; and even if not, an updated English message is better
>> than an outdated native-language message.
> That makes sense to me, at least, so +1, for my part.
Yeah, if the existing message text is actually wrong or misleading,
we should back-patch. I'm not sure I would do that if it's just a
cosmetic improvement. In this particular case, +1.
OK. Applied and backpatched.