Re: Using base backup exclusion filters to reduce data transferred with pg_rewind

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Using base backup exclusion filters to reduce data transferred with pg_rewind
Date: 2018-03-27 02:07:21
Message-ID: 20180327020721.GD1172@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:12:09PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Yeah, neither 2 or 3 really appeals to me. Option 1 does touch a number
> of places but in a pretty straight-forward way- and if there's a typo
> there, the compiler is likely to complain, so it seems like the risk is
> relatively low.

One example of place which can be easily consolidated is pg_wal whose
definition is in xlog_internal.h. And there are a couple of other
places which could be consolidated without major refactoring like what I
proposed initially on this thread. I would suggest to focus on this
effort on a separate thread later on.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Wong 2018-03-27 02:22:22 Re: ppc64le support in 9.3 branch?
Previous Message Mark Wong 2018-03-27 02:04:33 Re: GSOC 2018 Proposal review