Re: trying again to get incremental backup

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: trying again to get incremental backup
Date: 2023-12-11 07:52:32
Message-ID: CAFiTN-sFkA_eVC3sRiK=TzMCO7hTu5XxtAQhmTjqve_eFG6N3w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 11:44 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:40 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 3:58 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Considering all this, what I'm inclined to do is go and put
> > > UPLOAD_MANIFEST back, instead of INCREMENTAL_WAL_RANGE, and adjust
> > > accordingly. But first: does anybody see more problems here that I may
> > > have missed?
> >
> > OK, so here's a new version with UPLOAD_MANIFEST put back. I wrote a
> > long comment explaining why that's believed to be necessary and
> > sufficient. I committed 0001 and 0002 from the previous series also,
> > since it doesn't seem like anyone has further comments on those
> > renamings.
>
> I have done some testing on standby, but I am facing some issues,
> although things are working fine on the primary. As shown below test
> [1]standby is reporting some errors that manifest require WAL from
> 0/60000F8, but this backup starts at 0/6000028. Then I tried to look
> into the manifest file of the full backup and it shows contents as
> below[0]. Actually from this WARNING and ERROR, I am not clear what
> is the problem, I understand that full backup ends at "0/60000F8" so
> for the next incremental backup we should be looking for a summary
> that has WAL starting at "0/60000F8" and we do have those WALs. In
> fact, the error message is saying "this backup starts at 0/6000028"
> which is before "0/60000F8" so whats the issue?
>
> [0]
> "WAL-Ranges": [
> { "Timeline": 1, "Start-LSN": "0/6000028", "End-LSN": "0/60000F8" }
>
>
> [1]
> -- test on primary
> dilipkumar(at)dkmac bin % ./pg_basebackup -D d
> dilipkumar(at)dkmac bin % ./pg_basebackup -D d1 -i d/backup_manifest
>
> -- cleanup the backup directory
> dilipkumar(at)dkmac bin % rm -rf d
> dilipkumar(at)dkmac bin % rm -rf d1
>
> --test on standby
> dilipkumar(at)dkmac bin % ./pg_basebackup -D d -p 5433
> dilipkumar(at)dkmac bin % ./pg_basebackup -D d1 -i d/backup_manifest -p 5433
>
> WARNING: aborting backup due to backend exiting before pg_backup_stop
> was called
> pg_basebackup: error: could not initiate base backup: ERROR: manifest
> requires WAL from final timeline 1 ending at 0/60000F8, but this
> backup starts at 0/6000028
> pg_basebackup: removing data directory "d1"

Jakub, pinged me offlist and pointed me to the thread[1] where it is
already explained so I think we can ignore this.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoYuC27_ToGtTTNyHgpn_eJmdqrmhJ93bAbinkBtXsWHaA%40mail.gmail.com

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2023-12-11 08:17:19 Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Previous Message Drouvot, Bertrand 2023-12-11 07:52:28 Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby