Re: allow_in_place_tablespaces vs. pg_basebackup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: allow_in_place_tablespaces vs. pg_basebackup
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZZ_9unmnxd0CUZ0ECCx3G7rfYXDrVvayrX6V_1TSWwmA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: allow_in_place_tablespaces vs. pg_basebackup  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: allow_in_place_tablespaces vs. pg_basebackup  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 9:40 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> Looking at the patch, nothing really stands out..

It doesn't seem like anyone's unhappy about this patch. I don't think
it's necessary to back-patch it, given that in-place tablespaces are
intended for developer use, not real-world use, and also given that
the patch requires changing both a bit of server-side behavior and
some client-side behavior and it seems unfriendly to create behavior
skew of that sort in minor release. However, I would like to get it
committed to master.

Do people think it's OK to do that now, or should I wait until we've
branched? I personally think this is bug-fix-ish enough that now is
OK, but I'll certainly forebear if others disagree.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mikael Kjellström
Date:
Subject: Re: Direct I/O
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: v16dev: invalid memory alloc request size 8488348128