Re: block-level incremental backup

From: Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: block-level incremental backup
Date: 2019-09-09 11:51:34
Message-ID: CAM2+6=WU7P94eZ-PFDQnN5F7LE-w7ouGkQuEZNoA7dR1TsdSkg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 5:21 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> I have not yet completed the review for 0004, but I have few more
> comments. Tomorrow I will try to complete the review and some testing
> as well.
>
> 1. It seems that the output full backup generated with
> pg_combinebackup also contains the "INCREMENTAL BACKUP REFERENCE WAL
> LOCATION". It seems confusing
> because now this is a full backup, not the incremental backup.
>

Yes, that was remaining and was in my TODO.
Done in the new patchset. Also, taking --label as an input like
pg_basebackup.

>
> 2.
> + memset(outblocks, 0, sizeof(FileOffset) * RELSEG_SIZE);
>
> I don't think you need to memset this explicitly as you can initialize
> the array itself no?
> FileOffset outblocks[RELSEG_SIZE] = {{0}}
>

I didn't see any issue with memset either but changed this per your
suggestion.

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

--
Jeevan Chalke
Technical Architect, Product Development
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-09-09 11:57:46 Re: refactoring - share str2*int64 functions
Previous Message Jeevan Chalke 2019-09-09 11:47:39 Re: block-level incremental backup