| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, 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 17:00:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20190418170053.jja6qxrz465ipmzk@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-04-18 11:34:32 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
I don't think it'd be a meaningful restriction. Given that we use those
for shared_buffer descriptors, WAL etc.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andy Fan | 2019-04-18 17:02:39 | Re: Question about the holdable cursor |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-04-18 16:56:10 | Re: block-level incremental backup |