| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: block-level incremental backup |
| Date: | 2019-09-05 03:25:46 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZVTRah+ty2wA=BCPjHcqrxZgNy9-nbyna8Ly5dJEGuZQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:08 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > For generating a
> > file, you can always emit the newest and "best" tar format, but for
> > reading a file, you probably want to be prepared for older or cruftier
> > variants. Maybe not -- I'm not super-familiar with the tar on-disk
> > format. But I think there must be a reason why tar libraries exist,
> > and I don't want to write a new one.
>
> We need to be sure as well that the library chosen does not block
> access to a feature in all the various platforms we have.
Well, again, my preference is to just not make this particular feature
work natively with tar files. Then I don't need to choose a library,
so the question is moot.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-09-05 04:01:55 | Re: ERROR: multixact X from before cutoff Y found to be still running |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-09-05 02:50:45 | Re: refactoring - share str2*int64 functions |