Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_internal.init from base backup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Haribabu Kommi
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_internal.init from base backup
Date
Msg-id CAJrrPGcT9xZRkzSy7A5zLss12ys5gTzS_oqFghrXSKf0uOOiYg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] Exclude pg_internal.init from base backup  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_internal.init from base backup  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 3:03 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 5 November 2017 at 11:55, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Petr Jelinek
>> <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> > Not specific problem to this patch, but I wonder if it should be made
>> > more clear that those files (there are couple above of what you added)
>> > are skipped no matter which directory they reside in.
>>
>> Agreed, it is a good idea to tell in the docs how this behaves. We
>> could always change things so as the comparison is based on the full
>> path like what is done for pg_control, but that does not seem worth
>> complicating the code.
>
>
> pg_internal.init can, and do, appear in multiple different directories.
> pg_control is always in the same place. So they're not the same thing.
>
> So +1 for documenting the difference in how these are handled, as this is
> important to know for somebody writing an external tool for it.

Changes made, moving to commit the attached patch.

The commit 98267e missed to check the empty SGML tag, attached patch
fixes the same.

Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Exclude pg_internal.init from base backup