| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: block-level incremental backup |
| Date: | 2019-04-18 15:34:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20190418153432.wdwsuau7igr2eyry@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 05:32:57PM +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 11:57:35AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Also, instead of storing the file name and block number in the modblock
> > file, using the database oid, relfilenode, and block number (3 int32
> > values) should be sufficient.
>
> Would doing it that way constrain the design of new table access
> methods in some meaningful way?
I think these are the values used in WAL, so I assume table access
methods already have to map to those, unless they use their own.
I actually don't know.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2019-04-18 15:45:24 | Re: proposal: psql PSQL_TABULAR_PAGER variable |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2019-04-18 15:32:57 | Re: block-level incremental backup |