Re: skipping pg_log in basebackup (was Re: pg_basebackup and pg_stat_tmp directory) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Abhijit Menon-Sen
Subject Re: skipping pg_log in basebackup (was Re: pg_basebackup and pg_stat_tmp directory)
Date
Msg-id 20150611052040.GA30626@toroid.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: skipping pg_log in basebackup (was Re: pg_basebackup and pg_stat_tmp directory)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: skipping pg_log in basebackup (was Re: pg_basebackup and pg_stat_tmp directory)  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Re: skipping pg_log in basebackup (was Re: pg_basebackup and pg_stat_tmp directory)  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
At 2015-06-10 13:22:27 -0400, robertmhaas@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I'm not clear on which of these options you are voting for:
> 
> (1) include pg_log in pg_basebackup as we do currently
> (2) exclude it
> (3) add a switch controlling whether or not it gets excluded
> 
> I can live with (3), but I bet most people want (2).

Thanks for spelling out the options.

I strongly prefer (2), but I could live with (3) if it were done as a
GUC setting. (And if that's what we decide to do, I'm willing to write
up the patch.)

Whether or not it's a good idea to let one's logfiles grow to >8GB, the
fact that doing so breaks base backups means that being able to exclude
pg_log *somehow* is more of a necessity than personal preference.

On the other hand, I don't like the idea of doing (3) by adding command
line arguments to pg_basebackup and adding a new option to the command.
I don't think that level of "flexibility" is justified; it would also
make it easier to end up with a broken base backup (by inadvertently
excluding more than you meant to).

-- Abhijit



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.5 release notes
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Draft release notes for 9.4.4 et al