On Mon, Jun  9, 2014 at 11:17:41AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>     Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
>     > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>     >> Another thought is we could make pg_basebackup simply skip any files
>     that
>     >> exceed RELSEG_SIZE, on the principle that you don't really need/want
>     >> enormous log files to get copied anyhow.  We'd still need the pax
>     >> extension if the user had configured large RELSEG_SIZE, but having a
>     >> compatible tar could be documented as a requirement of doing that.
>     > I think going all the way to pax is the proper long-term thing to do, at
>     > least if we can confirm it works in the main tar implementations.
>     > For backpatchable that seems more reasonable. It doesn't work today, and
>     we
>     > just need to document that it doesn't, with larger RELSEG_SIZE. And then
>     > fix it properly for the future.
>     Agreed, this would be a reasonable quick fix that we could replace in
>     9.5 or later.
> Fujii, are you going to be able to work on this with the now expanded scope? 
> :)

Is this a TODO or doc item?

  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to