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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
