From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Streaming a base backup from master |
Date: | 2010-09-03 13:56:12 |
Message-ID: | 20100903135612.GR26232@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> The rsync code itself is not modular, I believe. I think the author
> thereof kind of took the approach of placing efficiency before all.
Yeah, I looked into this when discussing this same concept at PGCon with
folks. There doesn't appear to be a good librsync and, even if there
was, there's a heck of alot of complexity there that we *don't* need.
rsync is a great tool, don't get me wrong, but let's not try to go over
our heads here.
We don't need permissions handling, as an example. I also don't think
we need the binary diff/partial file transfer capability- we already
break relations into 1G chunks (when/if they reach that size), so you
won't necessairly be copying the entire relation if you're just doing
mtime based or per-file-checksum based detection. We don't need device
node handling, we don't need auto-ignoring files, or pattern
exclusion/inclusion, we don't really need a progress bar (though it'd be
nice.. :), etc, etc, etc.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-03 14:07:25 | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2010-09-03 13:46:40 | Re: regclass without error? |