Re: where should I stick that backup?

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: where should I stick that backup?
Date: 2020-04-20 09:44:58
Message-ID: CAA4eK1+n5VYoz0Uk0S29EmNXhpHpn_3_cDDY+uWW9syju5RGJQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:44 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > I think having a simple framework in pg_basebackup for plugging in new
> > algorithms would make it noticeably simpler to add LZ4 or whatever
> > your favorite compression algorithm is. And I think having that
> > framework also be able to use shell commands, so that users don't have
> > to wait a decade or more for new choices to show up, is also a good
> > idea.
>
> As long as here's sensible defaults, and so that the user doesn't have
> to specify paths to binaries for the common cases, I'm OK with that. I'm
> not ok with requiring the user to specify shell fragments for things
> that should be built in.
>
> If we think the appropriate way to implement extensible compression is
> by piping to commandline binaries ([1]),
>

I can see how such a scheme could be useful for backups but how do we
restore such a backup?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Prabhat Sahu 2020-04-20 10:18:41 Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables
Previous Message Amit Langote 2020-04-20 09:35:44 Re: DETACH PARTITION and FOR EACH ROW triggers on partitioned tables