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? Or add a signal
handler in the pg_basebackup client emitting a warning about it?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
