Re: [patch] reorder tablespaces in basebackup tar stream for backup_label

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
Cc: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [patch] reorder tablespaces in basebackup tar stream for backup_label
Date: 2017-03-17 11:46:24
Message-ID: CAB7nPqT0QPyvVMheGTnfF6r9CBTPtvrOsjGNfFXC0_s3rcS36g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Michael Banck
<michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, den 17.03.2017, 10:50 +0900 schrieb Michael Paquier:
>> The comment block format is incorrect. I would think as well that this
>> comment should say it is important to have the main tablespace listed
>> last it includes the WAL segments, and those need to contain all the
>> latest WAL segments for a consistent backup.
>
> How about the attached? The comment now reads as follows:
>
> |Add a node for the base directory. If WAL is included, the base
> |directory has to be last as the WAL files get appended to it. If WAL
> |is not included, send the base directory first, so that the
> |backup_label file is the first file to be sent.

Close enough, still not that:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/source-format.html

>> FWIW, I have no issue with changing the ordering of backups the way
>> you are proposing here as long as the comment of this code path is
>> clear.
>
> OK, great, let's see what the committers think then.

Still that's a minor point, so I am making that ready for committer.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-03-17 11:50:26 Re: increasing the default WAL segment size
Previous Message Kuntal Ghosh 2017-03-17 11:44:53 Re: [HACKERS] Two phase commit in ECPG