| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |
| Date: | 2023-11-20 19:10:34 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobQ+qxZxMNdWF6cnVm7piSK5uR1yMbUqGsAdC+wfppfDw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 2:03 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> That sounds good to me. Not having to parse the manifest server-side
> sounds like a win, as does saving the transfer, for the cases where the
> manifest is large.
OK. I'll look into this next week, hopefully.
> Is this meant to support multiple timelines each with non-overlapping
> adjacent ranges, rather than multiple non-adjacent ranges?
Correct. I don't see how non-adjacent LSN ranges could ever be a
useful thing, but adjacent ranges on different timelines are useful.
> Do I have it right that you want to rewrite this bit before considering
> this ready to commit?
For sure. I don't think this is the only thing that needs to be
revised before commit, but it's definitely *a* thing that needs to be
revised before commit.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Verite | 2023-11-20 19:13:35 | Re: psql's FETCH_COUNT (cursor) is not being respected for CTEs |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2023-11-20 19:08:15 | Re: Use of backup_label not noted in log |