Re: File based Incremental backup v9

From: Marco Nenciarini <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: File based Incremental backup v9
Date: 2015-02-03 10:03:30
Message-ID: 54D09CF2.7070606@2ndquadrant.it
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Il 02/02/15 22:28, Magnus Hagander ha scritto:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Marco Nenciarini
> <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it
> <mailto:marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>> wrote:
> > Il 31/01/15 17:22, Erik Rijkers ha scritto:
> >> On Sat, January 31, 2015 15:14, Marco Nenciarini wrote:
> >>
> >>> 0001-public-parse_filename_for_nontemp_relation.patch
> >>> 0002-copydir-LSN-v2.patch
> >>> 0003-File-based-incremental-backup-v8.patch
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> It looks like it only compiles with assert enabled.
> >>
> >
> > It is due to a typo (assert instead of Assert). You can find the updated
> > patch attached to this message.
>
> I would sure like it if you would avoid changing the subject line
> every time you post a new version of this patch. It breaks the
> threading for me.
>
>
> +1 - it does break gmail.

Ok, sorry for that.

>
>
>
> It seems to have also broken it for the CommitFest app, which thinks
> v3 is the last version. I was not able to attach the new version.
>
>
> The CF app has detected that it's the same thread, because of the
> headers (gmail is the buggy one here - the headers of the email are
> perfectly correct).
>
> It does not, however, pick up and show the change of subject there (but
> you can see if if you click the link for the latest version into the
> archives - the link under "latest" or "latest attachment" both go to the
> v9 patch).
>
>
>
> When I clicked on "attach thread" without having logged in, it took me
> to a bad URL. When I clicked on it after having logged in, it
>
>
> Clearly a bug.
>
>
>
> purported to work, but AFAICS, it didn't actually do anything.
>
>
> That's because the thread is already there, and you're adding it again.
> Of course, it wouldn't hurt if it actually told you that :)
>

I'm also confused from the "(Patch: No)" part at the end of every line
if you expand the last attachment line.

Every message shown here contains one or more patch attached.

Regards,
Marco

--
Marco Nenciarini - 2ndQuadrant Italy
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)it | www.2ndQuadrant.it

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2015-02-03 10:05:34 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0
Previous Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2015-02-03 09:49:41 How about to have relnamespace and relrole?