Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackups and slots - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackups and slots
Date
Msg-id CAHGQGwHWhZkK_4c=Mv2-itp_Uc31QupXhFPf0Ub9-4Dsp+cFSw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackups and slots  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackups and slots  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>> This patch looks reasonable to me.
>>
>> Attached is a top-up patch with a few small fixups.
>>
>> I suggest to wait for the resolution of the "Replication/backup
>> defaults" thread.  I would not want to be in a situation where users who
>> have not been trained to use replication slots now have yet another
>> restart-only parameter to set before they can take a backup.
>>
>
> Thanks for the review and the top-up patch. I've applied it and pushed.

- if (replication_slot && includewal != STREAM_WAL)
+ if ((replication_slot || no_slot) && includewal != STREAM_WAL)

Why do we need to check "no_slot" here? Since no_slot=true means that
no temporary replication slot is specified, it's fine even with both -X none
and fetch.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Implement targetlist SRFs using ROWS FROM() (wasChanged SRF in targetlist handling)
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] parallelize queries containing subplans