Re: backup manifests

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Tels <nospam-pg-abuse(at)bloodgate(dot)com>, Suraj Kharage <suraj(dot)kharage(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: backup manifests
Date: 2020-01-03 17:01:23
Message-ID: 20200103170123.GX3195@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greetings,

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 11:44 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > Sure, it'd be work, and for "adding a simple backup manifest", maybe too
> > much to be worth considering ... but that's not what is going on here,
> > is it? Are we really *just* going to add a backup manifest to
> > pg_basebackup and call it done? That's not what I understood the goal
> > here to be but rather to start doing a lot of other things with
> > pg_basebackup beyond just having a manifest and if you think just a bit
> > farther down the path, I think you start to realize that you're going to
> > need this base set of capabilities to get to a point where pg_basebackup
> > (or whatever it ends up being called) is able to have the kind of
> > capabilities that exist in other PG backup software already.
>
> I have no development plans for pg_basebackup that require extending
> the format of the manifest file in any significant way, and am not
> aware that anyone else has such plans either. If you are aware of
> something I'm not, or if anyone else is, it would be helpful to know
> about it.

You're certainly intending to do *something* with the manifest, and
while I appreciate that you feel you've come up with a complete use-case
that this simple manifest will be sufficient for, I frankly doubt
that'll actually be the case. Not long ago it wasn't completely clear
that a manifest at *all* was even going to be necessary for the specific
use-case you had in mind (I'll admit I wasn't 100% sure myself at the
time either), but now that we're down the road of having one, I can't
agree with the blanket assumption that we're never going to want to
extend it, or even that it won't be necessary to add to it before this
particular use-case is fully addressed.

And the same goes for the other things that were discussed up-thread
regarding memory context and error handling and such.

I'm happy to outline the other things that one *might* want to include
in a manifest, if that would be helpful, but I'll also say that I'm not
planning to hack on adding that to pg_basebackup in the next month or
two. Once we've actually got a manifest, if it's in an extendable
format, I could certainly see people wanting to do more with it though.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christoph Berg 2020-01-03 17:02:26 Re: pgsql: Add basic TAP tests for psql's tab-completion logic.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-01-03 16:56:37 Re: sidewinder has one failure