| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: cleanup patches for incremental backup |
| Date: | 2024-01-29 21:13:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20240129211321.GA3676549@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 03:18:50PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm wondering if what we need to do is run pg_walsummary on both
> summary files in that case. If we just pick one or the other, how do
> we know which one to pick?
Even if we do that, isn't it possible that none of the summaries will
include the change? Presently, we get the latest summarized LSN, make a
change, and then wait for the next summary file with a greater LSN than
what we saw before the change. But AFAICT there's no guarantee that means
the change has been summarized yet, although the chances of that happening
in a test are probably pretty small.
Could we get the LSN before and after making the change and then inspect
all summaries that include that LSN range?
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-01-29 21:17:24 | Streaming read-ready sequential scan code |
| Previous Message | Ants Aasma | 2024-01-29 21:12:55 | Re: Change GUC hashtable to use simplehash? |