xtrabackup_slave_info can be misleading

[Marc Castrovinci]

Maybe i'm splitting hairs, but I feel the filename xtrabackup_slave_info can be misleading in cases where the backup is taken from a slave. Wouldn't keeping the already existing standard in place be easier? IE xtrabackup_slave_status. Now a user can quickly know what and where that information is coming from.

When the slave ( where the backup was taken ) and the master are on the same binlog #, you can easily get confused.

Maybe renaming xtrabackup_binlog_info to xtrabackup_master_status would be helpful too?

Getting the correct logging position ( atleast in 5.5 without GTIDs ) is one of the most important steps so you dont lose transactions. Having to do this mental conversion of file names isn't helpful.

Just my .02

[Alexey Kopytov (akopytov)]

Agree, most metadata filenames are misleading. We can target fixing this for the next major release, i.e. 2.1.

[Shahriyar Rzayev (rzayev-sehriyar)]

Percona now uses JIRA for bug reports so this bug report is migrated to: https://jira.percona.com/browse/PXB-990