> On 21 Apr 2023, at 00:33, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 01:15:40PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Maybe. I'm a bit hesitant to add too many smarts to pg_rewind. It's a tool
>> for when something has gone wrong with a cluster (albeit probably not at the
>> filesystem level), and at that point I feel it's better to put the user fully
>> in charge. Perhaps I'm overly cautious, curious to hear from others.
>
> Hmm. pg_rewind is mostly a differential block-level backup tool, so
> applying the same rules everywhere across the board would be sensible
> here. See that exclude_list_item is able to handle prefixes, and we
> may want to extend the same logic for the directory list, as well..
>
> By the way, the patch ought to add some tests? For pg_basebackup,
> this would be around "These files should not be copied" in
> 010_pg_basebackup.pl. pg_checksums has also its own checks in
> 002_actions.pl.
Skipping hidden files in pg_rewind added as well as tests for all three
utilities and mentions of this in the docs. I'll park this in the next
commitfest for now.
--
Daniel Gustafsson