On 10.08.2011 12:29, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 18:07, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>>> On 09.08.2011 18:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>> How about making the new backup_label field optional? If absent, assume
>>>> current behavior.
>>
>>> That's how I actually did it in the patch. However, the problem wrt.
>>> requiring initdb is not the new field in backup_label, it's the new
>>> field in the control file.
>>
>> Yeah. I think it's too late to be fooling with pg_control for 9.1.
>> Just fix it in HEAD.
>
> Should we add a note to the documentation of pg_basebackup in 9.1
> telling people to take care about the failure case?
Something like "Note: if you abort the backup before it's finished, the
backup won't be valid" ? That seems pretty obvious to me, hardly worth
documenting.
> Or add a signal
> handler in the pg_basebackup client emitting a warning about it?
We don't have such a signal handler pg_dump either. I don't think we
should add it.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
