From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: where should I stick that backup? |
Date: | 2020-04-05 06:53:28 |
Message-ID: | 20200405065328.GA3722712@rfd.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 10:19:21AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> What I'm thinking about is: suppose we add an option to pg_basebackup
> with a name like --pipe-output. This would be mutually exclusive with
> -D, but would work at least with -Ft and maybe also with -Fp. The
> argument to --pipe-output would be a shell command to be executed once
> per output file. Any instance of %f in the shell command would be
> replaced with the name of the file that would have been written (and
> %% would turn into a single %). The shell command itself would be
> executed via system(). So if you want to compress, but using some
> other compression program instead of gzip, you could do something
> like:
>
> pg_basebackup -Ft --pipe-output 'bzip > %f.bz2'
Seems good to me. I agree -Fp is a "maybe" since the overhead will be high
for small files.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-05 07:18:36 | Comment explaining why vacuum needs to push snapshot seems insufficient. |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-04-05 04:13:30 | Re: Online checksums verification in the backend |