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
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 |