On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Chris Travers <chris.trav...@adjust.com> wrote:
> Are there any cases right now where you have features added by extensions 
> that write to directories which are required for a rewind?

In some of the stuff I maintain, I actually have one case now of a
configuration file included with include_if_exists by postgresql.conf
and is expected to be generated by a component that my code doing the
rewind has no direct access on... I can control how pg_rewind kicks
in, but I think that you would actually break silently the current
code, which is scary especially if I don't control the code where
pg_rewind is called when Postgres 11 gets integrated into the product
I am thinking about, and even more scary if there is no way to include

> The problem with an exclude list is that we cannot safely exclude
> configuration files or logs (because these could be named anything), right?

You have the exact same problem with base backups now, and any
configuration files created by extensions are a per-case problem...
The pattern that base backups now use is an exclude list. In the
future I would rather see base backups and pg_rewind using the same
infrastructure for both things:
- pg_rewind should use the replication protocol with BASE_BACKUP.
Having it rely on root access now is crazy.
- BASE_BACKUP should have an option where it is possible to exclude
custom paths.
What you are proposing here would make both diverge more, which is in
my opinion not a good approach.

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

Reply via email to