Thread: should pg_basebackup be listed as a server application?
The pg_basebackup reference page is currently under "Client Applications" [0]. I think it's more of a server application, because it's what you'd run instead of initdb on the server. Should it be moved to the "Server Applications" section? [0] http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/reference.html
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 19:18, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > The pg_basebackup reference page is currently under "Client > Applications" [0]. I think it's more of a server application, because > it's what you'd run instead of initdb on the server. Should it be moved > to the "Server Applications" section? Not sure I buy that argument. pg_dump/pg_dumpall/pg_restore are under client applications. They're something you run *alongside* initdb and not instead, sure.. But they're all backup tools. And normally you *don't* necessarily run pg_basebackup instead of initdb. That is just one usecase - the one of setting up a clone or a replication slave. If you're using it to just take a base backup (which is what it's named for), it's not done instead of initdb... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of vie may 06 14:30:27 -0300 2011: > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 19:18, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > > The pg_basebackup reference page is currently under "Client > > Applications" [0]. I think it's more of a server application, because > > it's what you'd run instead of initdb on the server. Should it be moved > > to the "Server Applications" section? > > Not sure I buy that argument. pg_dump/pg_dumpall/pg_restore are under > client applications. They're something you run *alongside* initdb and > not instead, sure.. But they're all backup tools. Is there really a dichotomy here? Client/server? Maybe we just need another category, "administrative applications" or something like that. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of vie may 06 14:30:27 -0300 2011: >> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 19:18, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >> > The pg_basebackup reference page is currently under "Client >> > Applications" [0]. I think it's more of a server application, because >> > it's what you'd run instead of initdb on the server. Should it be moved >> > to the "Server Applications" section? >> >> Not sure I buy that argument. pg_dump/pg_dumpall/pg_restore are under >> client applications. They're something you run *alongside* initdb and >> not instead, sure.. But they're all backup tools. > > Is there really a dichotomy here? Client/server? Maybe we just need > another category, "administrative applications" or something like that. You can draw a clear line between applications which can connect to a server remotely, and those which need to be executed on the actual server machine, and thus distinguish "Client" from "Server" Applications. If we use that logic, I think pg_config should be listed as a "Server Application" and pg_basebackup should remain a "Client Application", and we'd be consistent. I think trying to break the Client Applications down into administrative and non-administrative isn't very helpful -- the only client applications I see which are clearly non-administrative (i.e. non-superusers would normally use) are psql and ecpg. Everything else seems like stuff you either generally need superuser privs for (create*, drop*, etc.) or are tools typically used by the server admin (taking and restoring backups). Josh
Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Is there really a dichotomy here? Client/server? �Maybe we just need
>> another category, "administrative applications" or something like that.
> You can draw a clear line between applications which can connect to a
> server remotely, and those which need to be executed on the actual
> server machine, and thus distinguish "Client" from "Server"
> Applications. If we use that logic, I think pg_config should be listed
> as a "Server Application" and pg_basebackup should remain a "Client
> Application", and we'd be consistent.
Well, pg_config still fails to fit neatly into either category, since
you might want it on the server to find out how the server is
configured, and you might want it on the client to find out how the
client is configured (which could very easily be different, especially
if you are inquiring about things like installation directories).
I also tend to agree with Alvaro that a lot of the stuff that falls on
the "client" side of the fence when using the strict "can it be executed
remotely" test is stuff that typically would *not* be wanted on a
client machine. A packager who had thought twice about it would
probably not put pg_basebackup, pg_dump*, vacuumdb, reindexdb, or
clusterdb into a "client" rather than a "server" package, for instance.
(Although I notice that I've drunk the koolaid to the extent of
slavishly following the current division in the Fedora packages :-()
I'm not entirely sure if the notion of an "administrative" app helps
much, but for sure I've never been satisfied with the equation of "can
in principle execute remotely" with "client". This is a good time to be
rethinking that.
regards, tom lane
On fre, 2011-05-06 at 20:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not entirely sure if the notion of an "administrative" app helps > much, but for sure I've never been satisfied with the equation of "can > in principle execute remotely" with "client". This is a good time to > be rethinking that. One piece of supporting evidence that has been moderately useful over the years is that what we list as server applications are dependent on a particular major version (or the dependency closure of that, to include pg_ctl), whereas clients work with multiple server versions to varying degrees. And another, possibly equivalent, factor is that what you see under "server" is that it packaged in the server package, and what is under "client" is packaged in the client package. That's kind of useful for quickly finding what to install. So where would pg_basebackup fit in according to these two criteria?
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 23:38, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > On fre, 2011-05-06 at 20:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm not entirely sure if the notion of an "administrative" app helps >> much, but for sure I've never been satisfied with the equation of "can >> in principle execute remotely" with "client". This is a good time to >> be rethinking that. > > One piece of supporting evidence that has been moderately useful over > the years is that what we list as server applications are dependent on a > particular major version (or the dependency closure of that, to include > pg_ctl), whereas clients work with multiple server versions to varying > degrees. > > And another, possibly equivalent, factor is that what you see under > "server" is that it packaged in the server package, and what is under > "client" is packaged in the client package. That's kind of useful for > quickly finding what to install. > > So where would pg_basebackup fit in according to these two criteria? It should work with different versions of the server. It will require a 9.1 or newer server, but I see no reason why pg_basebackup 9.2 shouldn't work with a 9.1 server, for example. I'm not sure if it'd go in a server or client RPM though, I'll let a packager comment on that part. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Em 06-05-2011 21:18, Tom Lane escreveu:
> I also tend to agree with Alvaro that a lot of the stuff that falls on
> the "client" side of the fence when using the strict "can it be executed
> remotely" test
>
I think this idea is strict from docs [1] ("The common feature of these
applications is that they can be run on any host, independent of where the
database server resides."). I agree that is not a good way to categorize
binaries but who bothers? (It is only two categories.)
It seems logical that all "clients" use some postgresql library. So I would
put pg_basebackup on the "client" side of the fence.
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/reference-client.html
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira - Timbira http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento