-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
zed backup to stdout or existing file #284
Comments
This adds support for passing a single dash character as the filename to both the backup and restore commands, resulting in them using stdout and stdin respectively. Fixes: authzed#284
This adds support for passing a single dash character as the filename to the backup command, resulting in it using stdin. It also changes the restore command to default to reading from stdin if no filename is given. Fixes: #284
This adds support for passing a single dash character as the filename to the backup command, resulting in it using stdout. It also changes the restore command to default to reading from stdin if no filename is given. Fixes: authzed#284
Thanks for filing this! The v0.13.0 release should support this now. |
Hi, thank you very much for the swift implementation. However, for completeness I'd like to add that I still have the use case to send the backup data to an existing file (which is AFAICS not possible right now). This is my use case: I'd like to run backups using the provided docker images which don't have much other utilities, not even a shell to I'll find workarounds, but the described pattern would be fit most perfectly for me. Let me know how to proceed (reopen this issue, create a new one, go away and leave you alone... ;-)). Thanks again and kind regards, |
Hi,
I would like to send the backup to some subsequent processing, eg. compression, encryption, and other voodoo before hitting the final backup target. I would very much like if I could make it write to a previously created named pipe which I could read from with other programs. Maybe a
--force
overriding the check would already do the trick.Alternatively, sending the output to
stdout
to pipe it to other tools could also work.Kind regards,
Frank.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: