Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby
Date
Msg-id CABUevEyEG=_DsZcCnsyhSzgwH2o2OevL5JP8iHMKWdpVB9053Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby  (Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On mån, 2012-07-02 at 01:10 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> > But I think that part is lacking in functionality: AFAICT it's
>> > hardcoded to only handle host, port, user and password. What about
>> > other connection parameters, likely passed to pg_basebackup through
>> > the environment in that case? isn't that quite likely to break the
>> > server later?
>>
>> What about something like PQconninfo which returns the connection
>> string value established at connection?
>>
>> > Maybe the proper way around that is to provide the ability for
>> > pg_basebackup to take a full connection string, just like we allow
>> > psql to do?
>>
>> +1
>>
> I think both of these would be necessary to make this work smoothly.
>
> You also need to take into account situations like when pg_basebackup
> found a server with the help of PG* environment variables that might no
> longer be set when the server tries to start recovery.  So you need
> something like PQconninfo.

Zoltan,

are you planning to work on the things discussed in this thread? I
notice the patch is sitting with "waiting on author" in the CF app -
so the second question is that if you are doing that, do you think it
will be done within the scope of the current CF?

-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY