Re: pg_basebackup wish list - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: pg_basebackup wish list
Date
Msg-id CAHGQGwG9C6OnBy0xbFfv-oWpxawo7kTHdgKG7m0JOjat4xZvxA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_basebackup wish list  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_basebackup wish list  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Re: pg_basebackup wish list  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 7/12/16 12:53 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> The --help message for pg_basebackup says:
>>>
>>> -Z, --compress=0-9     compress tar output with given compression level
>>>
>>> But -Z0 is then rejected as 'invalid compression level "0"'.  The real
>>> docs do say 1-9, only the --help message has this bug.  Trivial patch
>>> attached.
>>
>> pg_dump --help and man page say it supports 0..9.  Maybe we should make
>> that more consistent.
>
> pg_dump actually does support -Z0, though.  Well, sort of.  It outputs
> plain text.  Rather than plain text wrapped in some kind of dummy gzip
> header, which is what I had naively expected.
>
> Is that what -Z0 in pg_basebackup should do as well, just output
> uncompressed tar data, and not add the ".gz" to the "base.tar" file
> name?

Yes, I think. What about the attached patch?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Constraint merge and not valid status
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: bug in citext's upgrade script for parallel aggregates