| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | david(at)pgmasters(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Rename backup_label to recovery_control |
| Date: | 2023-10-16 04:29:24 |
| Message-ID: | ZSy8JHciVl34Iog8@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 01:16:42PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Just an idea in a slightly different direction, but I'm wondering if
> we can simply merge the content of backup_label into control file.
> The file is 8192 bytes long, yet only 256 bytes are used. As a result,
> we anticipate no overhead. Sucha configuration would forcibly prevent
> uses from from removing the backup information.
With the critical assumptions behind PG_CONTROL_MAX_SAFE_SIZE, that
does not sound like a good idea to me. And that's without the fact
that base backup labels could make the control file theoretically even
larger than PG_CONTROL_FILE_SIZE, even if that's unlikely going to
happen in practice.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2023-10-16 04:33:10 | Re: SQL:2011 application time |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-10-16 04:26:24 | Re: Rename backup_label to recovery_control |