On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 05:44, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> We should, and the easiest way is to actually use XLogRead() since the
>> code is already there. How about the way in this patch?
> Thanks for the update. I reread the patch.
> + MemSet(&statbuf, 0, sizeof(statbuf));
> + statbuf.st_mode=S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR;
> +#ifndef WIN32
> + statbuf.st_uid=getuid();
> + statbuf.st_gid=getgid();
> + statbuf.st_size=XLogSegSize;
> + statbuf.st_mtime=time(NULL);
> Can you put a space around "="?
I'll run pgindent, it'll take care of that.
> Which is correct? Since we cannot start the PostgreSQL when
> getuid != geteuid, I don't think that there is really difference between
> getuid and geteuid. But other code always uses geteuid, so I think
> that geteuid should be used here instead of getuid for the sake of
Yeah, changed for consistency.
> + XLogFileName(xlogname, ThisTimeLineID, logid, logseg);
> + sprintf(fn, "./pg_xlog/%s", xlogname);
> + _tarWriteHeader(fn, NULL, &statbuf);
> Can we use XLogFilePath? instead? Because sendFile has not been
We can now, changed.
> What I said in upthread is wrong. We should use XLByteToPrevSeg
> for endptr and check "logseg > endlogseg". Otherwise, if endptr is
> not a boundary byte, endlogid/endlogseg indicates the last
> necessary WAL file, but it's not sent.
Yeah, thanks for this - and thanks to Heikki for straightening it out for me.
> + if (percent > 100)
> + percent = 100;
> I'm not sure if this is good idea because the total received can go
> further than the estimated size though the percentage stops at 100.
> This looks more confusing than the previous behavior. Anyway,
> I think that we need to document about the combination of -P and
> -x in pg_basebackup.
I found it less confusing - but still somewhat confusing. I'll add some docs.
> In pg_basebackup.sgml
> <term><option>--checkpoint <replaceable
> Though this is not the problem of the patch, I found the inconsistency
> of the descriptions about options of pg_basebackup. We should
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2011-01-30 19:28:41|
|Subject: updated patch for foreach stmt|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-30 19:12:12|
|Subject: Re: multiset patch review|