Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys
Date: 2018-03-02 04:07:03
Message-ID: 20180302040703.GB2259@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 02:29:13AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> + * write a backup history file with the same name.
>
> So more than one backup history files with the same name
> but the diffferent content can be created and archived.
> Isn't this problematic because the backup history file that
> users want to use later might be overwritten unexpectedly?

Yeah, that's the intention behind the patch. Would that actually happen
in practice though? We would talk about two backups running
simultaneously on a standby, which would overlap with each other to
generate a file aimed only at being helpful for debugging purposes, and
we provide no information now for backups taken from standbys. We could
of course make that logic a bit smarter by checking if there is an
extsing file with the same name and create a new file with a different
name. But is that worth the complication? That's where I am not
convinced, and that's the reason why this patch is doing things this
way.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-03-02 04:07:54 Re: [HACKERS] Creating backup history files for backups taken from standbys
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-03-02 04:01:19 Re: change in behaviour for format_type() call