Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 13:54, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> I don't think we should necessarily give up completely. But doing a
>>> pg_basebackup way *first* seems reasonable - because it's going to be
>>> the easiest one to "get right", given that we have more control there.
>>> Doesn't mean we shouldn't extend it in the future...
>>
>> Agreed. The question is -- how far should we change pg_basebackup to
>> "get right"? I think it's not difficult to change it so that it backs up
>> the control file at the end. But eliminating the need for full_page_writes=on
>> seems not easy. No? So I'm not inclined to do that in at least first commit.
>> Otherwise, I'm afraid the patch would become huge.
>
> It's more server side of base backups than the actual pg_basebackup
> tool of course, but I'm sure that's what we're all referring to here.
>
> Personally, I'd see the fpw stuff as part of the infrastructure
> needed. Meaning that the fpw stuff should go in *first*, and the
> pg_basebackup stuff later.

Agreed. I'll extract FPW stuff from the patch that I submitted, and revise it
as the infrastructure patch.

The changes of pg_start_backup() etc that Ishiduka-san did are also
a server-side infrastructure. I will extract them as another infrastructure one.

Ishiduka-san, if you have time, feel free to try the above, barring objection.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center