|From:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>|
|To:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Cc:||Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Suraj Kharage <suraj(dot)kharage(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tels <nospam-pg-abuse(at)bloodgate(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: backup manifests|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 4/2/20 1:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> are still some things that not everybody is happy about. In
> particular, Stephen and David are unhappy about using CRC-32C as the
> default algorithm, but Andres and Noah both think it's a reasonable
> choice, even if not as robust as everybody will want. As I agree, I'm
> going to stick with that choice.
Yeah, I seem to be on the losing side of this argument, at least for
now, so I don't think it should block the commit of this patch. It's an
easy enough tweak if we change our minds.
> For my part, I think this is a general issue that is not really this
> patch's problem to solve. We have had multiple discussions over the
> years about reducing the number of binaries that we ship. We could
> have a general binary called "pg" or similar and use subcommands: pg
> createdb, pg basebackup, pg validatebackup, etc. I think such an
> approach is worth considering, though it would certainly be an
> adjustment for everyone. Or we might do something else. But I don't
> want to deal with that in this patch.
I'm fine with the current name, especially now that WAL is validated.
> A couple of other minor suggestions have been made: (1) rejigger
> things to avoid message duplication related to launching external
That'd be nice to have, but I think we can live without it for now.
> (2) maybe use appendShellString
Seems like this would be good to have but I'm not going to make a fuss
> and (3) change some details
> of error-reporting related to manifest parsing. I don't believe anyone
> views these as blockers
I'd view this as later refinement once we see how the tool is being used
and/or get gripes from the field.
So, with the addition of the 0004 patch down-thread this looks
committable to me.
|Next Message||Corey Huinker||2020-04-02 19:40:44||Re: Add A Glossary|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2020-04-02 19:20:30||Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?|