Prevent pg_basebackup -Fp -D -?

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:

Right now, if you use

pg_basebackup -Ft -D -

you get a tarfile, written to stdout, for redirection.

However, if you use:

pg_basebackup -Fp -D -

you get a plaintext (unpackaged) backup, in a directory called "-".

I can't think of a single usecase where this is a good idea. Therefor,
I would suggest we simply throw an error in this case, instead of
creating the directory. Only for the specific case of specifying
exactly "-" as a directory.

Comments?

Isn't this a non-problem? This behavior is in line with the
documentation, so I would suspected that if directory name is
specified as "-" in plain mode, it should create the folder with this
name.
Do you consider having a folder of this name an annoyance?

Also, if we do that, is this something we should consider
backpatchable? It's not strictly speaking a bugfix, but I'd say it
fixes some seriously annoying behavior.

This would change the spec of pg_basebackup, so no? Does the current
behavior have potential security issues?

My 2c. Regards,
--
Michael

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 10/02/2013 05:47 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:

Right now, if you use

pg_basebackup -Ft -D -

you get a tarfile, written to stdout, for redirection.

However, if you use:

pg_basebackup -Fp -D -

you get a plaintext (unpackaged) backup, in a directory called "-".

I can't think of a single usecase where this is a good idea. Therefor,
I would suggest we simply throw an error in this case, instead of
creating the directory. Only for the specific case of specifying
exactly "-" as a directory.

Comments?

I can see fixing this going forwards, but it doesn't seem worth
backpatching.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Oct 3, 2013 2:47 AM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>

wrote:

Right now, if you use

pg_basebackup -Ft -D -

you get a tarfile, written to stdout, for redirection.

However, if you use:

pg_basebackup -Fp -D -

you get a plaintext (unpackaged) backup, in a directory called "-".

I can't think of a single usecase where this is a good idea. Therefor,
I would suggest we simply throw an error in this case, instead of
creating the directory. Only for the specific case of specifying
exactly "-" as a directory.

Comments?

Isn't this a non-problem? This behavior is in line with the
documentation, so I would suspected that if directory name is
specified as "-" in plain mode, it should create the folder with this
name.
Do you consider having a folder of this name an annoyance?

Yes, that is exactly the point - i do consider that an annoyance, and i
don't see the use case where you'd actually want it. I bet 100% of the
users of that have been accidental, thinking they'd get the pipe, not the
directory.

Also, if we do that, is this something we should consider
backpatchable? It's not strictly speaking a bugfix, but I'd say it
fixes some seriously annoying behavior.

This would change the spec of pg_basebackup, so no? Does the current
behavior have potential security issues?

No, there are no security issues that I can see. Just annoyance. And yes, I
guess it would change the spec, so backpatching might be a bad idea..

/Magnus

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 06:50:57AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:

On Oct 3, 2013 2:47 AM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:

Right now, if you use

pg_basebackup -Ft -D -

you get a tarfile, written to stdout, for redirection.

However, if you use:

pg_basebackup -Fp -D -

you get a plaintext (unpackaged) backup, in a directory called "-".

I can't think of a single usecase where this is a good idea. Therefor,
I would suggest we simply throw an error in this case, instead of
creating the directory. Only for the specific case of specifying
exactly "-" as a directory.

Comments?

Isn't this a non-problem? This behavior is in line with the
documentation, so I would suspected that if directory name is
specified as "-" in plain mode, it should create the folder with this
name.
Do you consider having a folder of this name an annoyance?

Yes, that is exactly the point - i do consider that an annoyance, and i don't
see the use case where you'd actually want it. I bet 100% of the users of that
have been accidental, thinking they'd get the pipe, not the directory.

Also, if we do that, is this something we should consider
backpatchable? It's not strictly speaking a bugfix, but I'd say it
fixes some seriously annoying behavior.

This would change the spec of pg_basebackup, so no? Does the current
behavior have potential security issues?

No, there are no security issues that I can see. Just annoyance. And yes, I
guess it would change the spec, so backpatching might be a bad idea..

Has this been fixed? If so, I don't see it.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:10 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 06:50:57AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:

On Oct 3, 2013 2:47 AM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com>

wrote:

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>

wrote:

Right now, if you use

pg_basebackup -Ft -D -

you get a tarfile, written to stdout, for redirection.

However, if you use:

pg_basebackup -Fp -D -

you get a plaintext (unpackaged) backup, in a directory called "-".

I can't think of a single usecase where this is a good idea.

Therefor,

I would suggest we simply throw an error in this case, instead of
creating the directory. Only for the specific case of specifying
exactly "-" as a directory.

Comments?

Isn't this a non-problem? This behavior is in line with the
documentation, so I would suspected that if directory name is
specified as "-" in plain mode, it should create the folder with this
name.
Do you consider having a folder of this name an annoyance?

Yes, that is exactly the point - i do consider that an annoyance, and i

don't

see the use case where you'd actually want it. I bet 100% of the users

of that

have been accidental, thinking they'd get the pipe, not the directory.

Also, if we do that, is this something we should consider
backpatchable? It's not strictly speaking a bugfix, but I'd say it
fixes some seriously annoying behavior.

This would change the spec of pg_basebackup, so no? Does the current
behavior have potential security issues?

No, there are no security issues that I can see. Just annoyance. And

yes, I

guess it would change the spec, so backpatching might be a bad idea..

Has this been fixed? If so, I don't see it.

It has not. I think the thread wasn't entirely clear on if we wanted it or
not, which is why I was waiting for more input from others. And then
promptly forgot about it since nobody spoke up :)

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