Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> I implemented this in two ways, and can't decide which I like better:
> 1. The contents of the backup label file are returned to the caller of
> do_pg_start_backup() as a palloc'd string.
> 2. do_pg_start_backup() creates a temporary file that the backup label
> is written to (instead of "backup_label").
> Implementation 1 changes more code, as pg_start/stop_backup() need to be
> changed to write/read from memory instead of file, but the result isn't
> any more complicated. Nevertheless, I somehow feel more comfortable with 2.
Seems like either one of these is fairly problematic in that you have to
have some monstrous kluge to get the backup_label file to appear with
the right name in the tarfile. How badly do we actually need this?
I don't think the use-case for concurrent base backups is all that large
in practice given the I/O hit it's going to involve.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
