Re: [PATCH] minor bugfix for pg_basebackup (9.6 ~ )

On 2019-Jul-24, Ian Barwick wrote:

> It'd be better if such a hypothetical option validated the provided
> slot name anwyay, to prevent later surprises.

Hmm, but what would we do if the validation failed?

> Revised patch attached, which as Alvaro suggests removes the escaping
> and adds a comment explaining why the raw value can be passed as-is.

Heh, yesterday I revised the original patch as attached and was about to
push when the bell rang.  I like this one because it keeps the comment
to one line and it mentions the function name in charge of the
validation (useful for grepping later on).  It's a bit laconic because
of the long function name and the desire to keep it to one line, but it
seems sufficient to me.

BTW upper case letters are not allowed :-)

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services