Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby [Review]

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at> wrote:

>  2013-01-01 18:25 keltezéssel, Magnus Hagander írta:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> now that PQconninfo() was committed, I rebased the subsequent
>> patches. Actual code change was only in the last patch, to
>> conform to the committed PQconninfo() API.
>>
>>
>  I've applied a modified version of the "tar unification" patch to
> master. It didn't apply cleanly so I ended up redoing a number of the
> things manually, but the end result is fairly similar. I don't think it'll
> cause anything but really trivial merge conflicts against the 04 patch, but
> I didn't actually check that (e.g. it's tarCreateHeader() not
> _tarCreateHeader() now).
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>    I took at look at the basebackup patch as well. Easier to get now that
> it's commented :) There's quite a lot of code in there whereby it tries to
> remove recovery.conf from the tar stream if it's already in there. That
> seems like an ugly way to do it. I see two other options, that I think both
> are better. If we do need it to be removed, we should probably pass that as
> a parameter up to the walsender, and make sure the file isn't included in
> the first place. But we can also leave it in there - the tar format is
> perfectly happy to have multiple copies of the same file in the archive -
> it'll just use whichever copy comes last.
>
>
> IIRC, Fujii Masao's wish was to remove the recovery.conf from the tar
> stream.
> I know that the tar format is perfectly happy with two files with the same
> path name but his reasoning was that GUIs (like WinRar) may get confused
> by two such files and cannot decide which one to extract. I didn't actually
> test this but it is a reasonable suspicion.
>

Hmm. Somehow, I missed that part of the discussion. Sorry, didn't realize
it had been mentioned already.


Passing a parameter to the walsender may be a better solution.
> It's a bad idea only because it wasn't mine. ;-)
>
> The only problem with this idea is that currently there's nothing that
> stops
> pg_basebackup to be a generic and backwards-compatible tool.
> It simply receives a TAR stream via plain PQgetCopyData() and optionally
> extracts it. The client-side solution to skip the recovery.conf file keeps
> this
> backward compatible feature. I tested this and pg_basebackup from 9.3dev
> happily backs up a 9.2.2 database...
>

I thought commit add6c3179a4d4fa3e62dd3e86a00f23303336bac at leasdt broke
that? In particular, did you test where any of those values were different
between client and server? Or maybe just didn't test in -x mode?

I actually thought there was something else that broke the compatibility,
but I can't seem to find it so perhaps that was something that was never
committed.

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/