| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |
| Date: | 2023-10-25 19:17:35 |
| Message-ID: | ff3366da-adb8-f41f-1d57-7ac4abd4a14a@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-10-25 We 11:24, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:33 AM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> I'm not too worried about the maintenance burden.
>>
>> That said, I agree that JSON might not be the best format for backup
>> manifests, but maybe that ship has sailed.
> I think it's a decision we could walk back if we had a good enough
> reason, but it would be nicer if we didn't have to, because what we
> have right now is working. If we change it for no real reason, we
> might introduce new bugs, and at least in theory, incompatibility with
> third-party tools that parse the existing format. If you think we can
> live with the additional complexity in the JSON parsing stuff, I'd
> rather go that way.
>
OK, I'll go with that. It will actually be a bit less invasive than the
patch I posted.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-10-25 19:19:59 | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-10-25 19:10:26 | Re: Should we represent temp files as unsigned long int instead of signed long int type? |