Re: PATCH: Exclude temp relations from base backup

From: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Exclude temp relations from base backup
Date: 2018-03-27 13:34:24
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thank you, pushed

David Steele wrote:
> On 3/26/18 1:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Teodor Sigaev (teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru) wrote:
>>> Will autovacuum (or something else) complain about absense of relfile during
>>> orphan table deleting? I mean, you get a base backup without temp tables,
>>> then you try to run postgres on it and will it complain about existing
>>> record in pg_class and absence of corresponding relfile?
>> I would certainly hope not considering that's what happens during
>> regular crash recovery also, so if there's an issue with that, we'd have
>> a problem in released versions.
> Agreed. The logic for pg_basebackup was modeled off RemovePgTempFiles()
> which is called at postmaster start. We are just doing the cleanup in
> advance (in the backup only, of course).
> Thanks,

Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavan Deolasee 2018-03-27 13:48:08 Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification
Previous Message Aleksander Alekseev 2018-03-27 13:20:42 Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem