Help text for pg_basebackup -R
The current help text for pg_basebackup -R is "write recovery.conf after
backup".
This says nothing about what it actually does. I've had a number of people
ask me now why that's not default "because you need a recovery.conf to
restore from backup". The point being that it doesn't say anything about
the fact that it writes the file *for replication*. The help page does, but
not the message.
I propose a new message per the attached patch.
Comments?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Attachments:
pg_basebackup_recovery_help.patchtext/x-patch; charset=US-ASCII; name=pg_basebackup_recovery_help.patchDownload
diff --git a/src/bin/pg_basebackup/pg_basebackup.c b/src/bin/pg_basebackup/pg_basebackup.c
index 0c82bc9..9020fb1 100644
--- a/src/bin/pg_basebackup/pg_basebackup.c
+++ b/src/bin/pg_basebackup/pg_basebackup.c
@@ -337,7 +337,7 @@ usage(void)
printf(_(" -r, --max-rate=RATE maximum transfer rate to transfer data directory\n"
" (in kB/s, or use suffix \"k\" or \"M\")\n"));
printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n"
- " write recovery.conf after backup\n"));
+ " write recovery.conf for replication\n"));
printf(_(" -S, --slot=SLOTNAME replication slot to use\n"));
printf(_(" --no-slot prevent creation of temporary replication slot\n"));
printf(_(" -T, --tablespace-mapping=OLDDIR=NEWDIR\n"
Magnus Hagander wrote:
printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n" - " write recovery.conf after backup\n")); + " write recovery.conf for replication\n")); printf(_(" -S, --slot=SLOTNAME replication slot to use\n"));
LGTM.
--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n"
- " write recovery.confafter backup\n"));
+ " write recovery.conf for
replication\n"));
printf(_(" -S, --slot=SLOTNAME replication slot to use\n"));
LGTM.
I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause issues for
translations, right? So we should make it head only?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:Magnus Hagander wrote:
printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n"
- " write recovery.confafter backup\n"));
+ " write recovery.conf for
replication\n"));
printf(_(" -S, --slot=SLOTNAME replication slot to use\n"));
LGTM.
I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause issues for
translations, right? So we should make it head only?
We've had the argument a number of times. My stand is that many
translators are active in the older branches, so this update would be
caught there too; and even if not, an updated English message is better
than an outdated native-language message.
Now, that's been argued in the context of a bug fix that introduces new
messages or changed an existing message for other reasons. I'm not sure
how strongly do we think it applies for a change that's *only* about
updating a message. I'm +0.5 on back-patching the change in this case.
--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:Magnus Hagander wrote:
printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n"
- " write recovery.confafter backup\n"));
+ " write recovery.conf for
replication\n"));
printf(_(" -S, --slot=SLOTNAME replication slot to use\n"));
LGTM.
I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause issues for
translations, right? So we should make it head only?We've had the argument a number of times. My stand is that many
translators are active in the older branches, so this update would be
caught there too; and even if not, an updated English message is better
than an outdated native-language message.
That makes sense to me, at least, so +1, for my part. Of course, I'm
not a translation-using user, but I have heard from people when I've
spoken in other countries that a correct english message is better than
outdated native-language messages, and further, that having the English
message makes it easier to get Google results.
Thanks!
Stephen
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause issues for
translations, right? So we should make it head only?
We've had the argument a number of times. My stand is that many
translators are active in the older branches, so this update would be
caught there too; and even if not, an updated English message is better
than an outdated native-language message.
That makes sense to me, at least, so +1, for my part.
Yeah, if the existing message text is actually wrong or misleading,
we should back-patch. I'm not sure I would do that if it's just a
cosmetic improvement. In this particular case, +1.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause
issues for
translations, right? So we should make it head only?
We've had the argument a number of times. My stand is that many
translators are active in the older branches, so this update would be
caught there too; and even if not, an updated English message is better
than an outdated native-language message.That makes sense to me, at least, so +1, for my part.
Yeah, if the existing message text is actually wrong or misleading,
we should back-patch. I'm not sure I would do that if it's just a
cosmetic improvement. In this particular case, +1.
OK. Applied and backpatched.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/