At Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:37:38 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote in
<CAB7nPqQU1H=PAG3XBYFFg9w+emeQFYAdkep7cWVeJukXtB_m_Q@mail.gmail.com>
> In my first reviews of the patch, I completely forgot the fact that
> BASE_BACKUP does send the start LSN of the backup in the first result
> set, so the patch proposed is actually rather useless because the data
> you are looking for is already at hand. If more data would be
> interesting to have, like the start timestamp number, we could just
> extend the first result set a bit as Fujii-san is coming at. Let's
> drop this patch and move on.
+1 for dropping this.
But I think we should edit the documentation a bit.
I don't fully understand those who want to handle it by a script,
but the documentation seems to be suggesting that something like
is possible. So it might be better add a description like that or
just remove the example.
"psql doesn't handle this protocol properly. The instances of theusage of these protocols are found in the source code
ofwalreceiverand pg_basebackup."
That being said, pg_basebackup is straightforward but
unfortunately, walrecever.c seems a bit hard to read for those
who unaccustomed to PostgresSQL source code.
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
