Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby

From: Jun Ishiduka <ishizuka(dot)jun(at)po(dot)ntts(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net
Cc: heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby
Date: 2011-10-31 04:11:19
Message-ID: 201110310412.p9V4Cxxn013989@ccmds32.silk.ntts.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 13:54, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> >>> I don't think we should necessarily give up completely. But doing a
> >>> pg_basebackup way *first* seems reasonable - because it's going to be
> >>> the easiest one to "get right", given that we have more control there.
> >>> Doesn't mean we shouldn't extend it in the future...
> >>
> >> Agreed. The question is -- how far should we change pg_basebackup to
> >> "get right"? I think it's not difficult to change it so that it backs up
> >> the control file at the end. But eliminating the need for full_page_writes=on
> >> seems not easy. No? So I'm not inclined to do that in at least first commit.
> >> Otherwise, I'm afraid the patch would become huge.
> >
> > It's more server side of base backups than the actual pg_basebackup
> > tool of course, but I'm sure that's what we're all referring to here.
> >
> > Personally, I'd see the fpw stuff as part of the infrastructure
> > needed. Meaning that the fpw stuff should go in *first*, and the
> > pg_basebackup stuff later.
> 
> Agreed. I'll extract FPW stuff from the patch that I submitted, and revise it
> as the infrastructure patch.
> 
> The changes of pg_start_backup() etc that Ishiduka-san did are also
> a server-side infrastructure. I will extract them as another infrastructure one.
> 
> Ishiduka-san, if you have time, feel free to try the above, barring objection.


Done.
Changed the name of the patch.

<Modifications>
 So changed to the positioning of infrastructure,
   * Removed the documentation.
   * changed to an error when you run pg_start/stop_backup() on the standby.


Regards.


--------------------------------------------
Jun Ishizuka
NTT Software Corporation
TEL:045-317-7018
E-Mail: ishizuka(dot)jun(at)po(dot)ntts(dot)co(dot)jp
--------------------------------------------

Attachment: standby_online_backup_infra_11.patch
Description: application/octet-stream (45.7 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Cédric VillemainDate: 2011-10-31 07:34:04
Subject: Re: Add socket dir to pg_config..?
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2011-10-31 03:50:17
Subject: Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group