"Philip Stoev" <[email protected]> writes: >> The test is basically the same you already did for non-blocking `mysqldump >> --master-data --single-transaction` used to provision a slave, but using >> XtraBackup instead of mysqldump.
> Done, a test was created and installed in buildbot, where it passes. I > am using xtradb from RPM. Cool, great stuff! >> Now, to do this we would need to be able to use XtraBackup. I am >> wondering if >> it wouldn't make sense to at the same time include XtraBackup into >> MariaDB? >> XtraBackup seems to me quite mature already, and a very good product >> besides. It is arguably long overdue for us to include it. > Including XtraBackup means including in MariaDB a yet another piece of > software that, even if it is of reasonable quality, has a different > development and release cycle: > > - we have 3 different innnodb directories, innodb, innodb_plugin and xtradb > - they have 3 different xtrabackup binaries, one for 5.0, one for 5.1 > and one for 5.5 > - they provide 5 patches to patch Innodb with. As discussed in IRC, I > tried the most intuitive combination and it did not patch correctly. I > did not try your renaming trick; > - in launchpad, they have a bunch of trees: a trunk tree , a 1.6 tree > and a windows tree, both of which have seen pushes in the last 1 week Yes, those are good points. So if users can just install xtrabackup stand-alone like from a Percona package, that might actually be better than including it in MariaDB. Once we get into distros, it will in any case be seamless, users will just eg. apt-get install xtrabackup, and it will not matter from where it comes. (and we could depends: or recommends: it from the mariadb-server package). Thanks! - Kristian. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
