Re: pg_basebackup wish list - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kenneth Marshall
Subject Re: pg_basebackup wish list
Date
Msg-id 20160712183920.GU31544@aart.rice.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_basebackup wish list  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:06:39AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 7/12/16 12:53 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >> The --help message for pg_basebackup says:
> >>
> >> -Z, --compress=0-9     compress tar output with given compression level
> >>
> >> But -Z0 is then rejected as 'invalid compression level "0"'.  The real
> >> docs do say 1-9, only the --help message has this bug.  Trivial patch
> >> attached.
> >
> > pg_dump --help and man page say it supports 0..9.  Maybe we should make
> > that more consistent.
> 
> pg_dump actually does support -Z0, though.  Well, sort of.  It outputs
> plain text.  Rather than plain text wrapped in some kind of dummy gzip
> header, which is what I had naively expected.
> 
> Is that what -Z0 in pg_basebackup should do as well, just output
> uncompressed tar data, and not add the ".gz" to the "base.tar" file
> name?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jeff
> 

Hi,

Yes, please support the no compression option. It can be useful in
situations where the bottleneck is the compression itself (quite
easily done with zlib based options, another plug for a higher
performance option).

Regards,
Ken



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup wish list
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: GiST index build versus NaN coordinates