On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:37 AM Asif Rehman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I forgot to make a check for no-manifest. Fixed. Attached is the updated
> patch.
+typedef struct
+{
...
+} BackupFile;
+
+typedef struct
+{
...
+} BackupState;
These structures need comments.
+list_wal_files_opt_list:
+ SCONST SCONST
{
- $$ = makeDefElem("manifest_checksums",
-
(Node *)makeString($2), -1);
+ $$ = list_make2(
+ makeDefElem("start_wal_location",
+ (Node *)makeString($2), -1),
+ makeDefElem("end_wal_location",
+ (Node *)makeString($2), -1));
+
}
This seems like an unnecessarily complicated parse representation. The
DefElems seem to be completely unnecessary here.
@@ -998,7 +1110,37 @@ SendBaseBackup(BaseBackupCmd *cmd)
set_ps_display(activitymsg);
}
- perform_base_backup(&opt);
+ switch (cmd->cmdtag)
So the design here is that SendBaseBackup() is now going to do a bunch
of things that are NOT sending a base backup? With no updates to the
comments of that function and no change to the process title it sets?
- return (manifest->buffile != NULL);
+ return (manifest && manifest->buffile != NULL);
Heck no. It appears that you didn't even bother reading the function
header comment.
+ * Send a single resultset containing XLogRecPtr record (in text format)
+ * TimelineID and backup label.
*/
static void
-SendXlogRecPtrResult(XLogRecPtr ptr, TimeLineID tli)
+SendXlogRecPtrResult(XLogRecPtr ptr, TimeLineID tli,
+ StringInfo label, char *backupid)
This just casually breaks wire protocol compatibility, which seems
completely unacceptable.
+ if (strlen(opt->tablespace) > 0)
+ sendTablespace(opt->tablespace, NULL, true, NULL, &files);
+ else
+ sendDir(".", 1, true, NIL, true, NULL, NULL, &files);
+
+ SendFilesHeader(files);
So I guess the idea here is that we buffer the entire list of files in
memory, regardless of size, and then we send it out afterwards. That
doesn't seem like a good idea. The list of files might be very large.
We probably need some code refactoring here rather than just piling
more and more different responsibilities onto sendTablespace() and
sendDir().
+ if (state->parallel_mode)
+ SpinLockAcquire(&state->lock);
+
+ state->throttling_counter += increment;
+
+ if (state->parallel_mode)
+ SpinLockRelease(&state->lock);
I don't like this much. It seems to me that we would do better to use
atomics here all the time, instead of conditional spinlocks.
+static void
+send_file(basebackup_options *opt, char *file, bool missing_ok)
...
+ if (file == NULL)
+ return;
That seems totally inappropriate.
+ sendFile(file, file + basepathlen, &statbuf,
true, InvalidOid, NULL, NULL);
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this looks like it's going to write a
tar header, even though we're not writing a tarfile.
+ else
+ ereport(WARNING,
+ (errmsg("skipping special file
or directory \"%s\"", file)));
So, if the user asks for a directory or symlink, what's going to
happen is that they're going to receive an empty file, and get a
warning. That sounds like terrible behavior.
+ /*
+ * Check for checksum failures. If there are failures across multiple
+ * processes it may not report total checksum count, but it will error
+ * out,terminating the backup.
+ */
In other words, the patch breaks the feature. Not that the feature in
question works particularly well as things stand, but this makes it
worse.
I think this patch (0003) is in really bad shape. I'm having second
thoughts about the design, but it's kind of hard to even have a
discussion about the design when the patch is riddled with minor
problems like inadequate comments, failure to update existing
comments, and breaking a bunch of things. I understand that sometimes
things get missed, but this is version 14 of a patch that's been
kicking around since last August.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
