There are a couple of things that pg_basebackup can't do that might be
an issue for some users. One of them is that you might want to do
something like encrypt your backup. Another is that you might want to
store someplace other than in the filesystem, like maybe S3. We could
certainly teach pg_basebackup how to do specifically those things, and
maybe that is worthwhile. However, I wonder if it would be useful to
provide a more general capability, either instead of doing those more
specific things or in addition to doing those more specific things.
What I'm thinking about is: suppose we add an option to pg_basebackup
with a name like --pipe-output. This would be mutually exclusive with
-D, but would work at least with -Ft and maybe also with -Fp. The
argument to --pipe-output would be a shell command to be executed once
per output file. Any instance of %f in the shell command would be
replaced with the name of the file that would have been written (and
%% would turn into a single %). The shell command itself would be
executed via system(). So if you want to compress, but using some
other compression program instead of gzip, you could do something
like:
pg_basebackup -Ft --pipe-output 'bzip > %f.bz2'
And if you want to encrypt, you could do something like:
pg_basebackup -Ft --pipe-output 'gpg -e -o %f.gpg'
And if you want to ship it off to be stored in a concrete bunker deep
underground, you can just do something like:
pg_basebackup -Ft --pipe-output 'send-to-underground-storage.sh
backup-2020-04-03 %f'
You still have to write send-to-underground-storage.sh, of course, and
that may involve some work, and maybe also some expensive
construction. But what you don't have to do is first copy the entire
backup to your local filesystem and then as a second step figure out
how to put it through whatever post-processing it needs. Instead, you
can simply take your backup and stick it anywhere you like.
Thoughts?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
