On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 10:04:19AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> This restriction is unlikely going to be removed, still I would rather
> keep the escaped logic in pg_basebackup. This is the usual,
> recommended coding pattern, and there is a risk that folks refer to
> this code block for their own fancy stuff, spreading the problem. The
> intention behind the code is to use an escaped name as well. For
> those reasons your patch is fine by me.
Attempting to use a slot with an unsupported set of characters will
lead beforehand to a failure when trying to fetch the WAL segments
with START_REPLICATION, meaning that this spot will never be reached
and that there is no active bug, but for the sake of consistency I see
no problems with applying the fix on HEAD. So, are there any
objections with that?
--
Michael
