On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:25:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I think there's absolutely no point in spending more time on this for
> > 9.5. At least 4 committers have looked at it and none of them are
> >
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:55 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:25:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > I think there's absolutely no point in spending more time on this for
>> >
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Gabriele Bartolini
gabriele.bartol...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
By the way, unless I'm missing something, this patch only seems to
include the code to construct an incremental backup, but no tools
whatsoever to do anything useful with it once you've got it.
As
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's absolutely no point in spending more time on this for
9.5. At least 4 committers have looked at it and none of them are
convinced by the current design; feedback from almost half a year ago
hasn't been
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:10:08AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
But I agree with Fujii to the extent that I see little value in
committing this patch in the form proposed. Being smart enough to use
the LSN to identify changed blocks, but then sending the entirety of
every file anyway because you
Il 05/03/15 05:42, Bruce Momjian ha scritto:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 01:25:13PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Yeah, it might make the situation better than today. But I'm afraid that
many users might get disappointed about that behavior of an incremental
backup after the release...
I don't get
Hi Bruce,
2015-03-08 5:37 GMT+11:00 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
Desirability - Design - Implement - Test - Review - Commit
This patch has continued in development without getting agreement on
its Desirability or Design, meaning we are going to continue going back
to those points
Hi Robert,
2015-03-07 2:57 GMT+11:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
By the way, unless I'm missing something, this patch only seems to
include the code to construct an incremental backup, but no tools
whatsoever to do anything useful with it once you've got it.
As stated previously,
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 09:26:38AM +1100, Gabriele Bartolini wrote:
Hi Bruce,
2015-03-08 5:37 GMT+11:00 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
Desirability - Design - Implement - Test - Review - Commit
This patch has continued in development without getting agreement on
its
Hi Robert,
2015-03-06 3:10 GMT+11:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
But I agree with Fujii to the extent that I see little value in
committing this patch in the form proposed. Being smart enough to use
the LSN to identify changed blocks, but then sending the entirety of
every file
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Gabriele Bartolini
gabriele.bartol...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
I believe the main point is to look at a user interface point of view.
If/When we switch to a block level incremental support, this will be
completely transparent to the end user, even if we start with a
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 01:25:13PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Yeah, it might make the situation better than today. But I'm afraid that
many users might get disappointed about that behavior of an incremental
backup after
Hi Fujii,
Il 03/03/15 11:48, Fujii Masao ha scritto:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Marco Nenciarini
marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
Il 02/03/15 14:21, Fujii Masao ha scritto:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Marco Nenciarini
marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
Hi,
I've
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 01:25:13PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Yeah, it might make the situation better than today. But I'm afraid that
many users might get disappointed about that behavior of an incremental
backup after the release...
I don't get what do you mean here. Can you elaborate
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Marco Nenciarini
marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
Hi Fujii,
Il 03/03/15 11:48, Fujii Masao ha scritto:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Marco Nenciarini
marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
Il 02/03/15 14:21, Fujii Masao ha scritto:
On Thu, Feb 12,
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Marco Nenciarini
marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
Il 02/03/15 14:21, Fujii Masao ha scritto:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Marco Nenciarini
marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
Hi,
I've attached an updated version of the patch.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Marco Nenciarini
marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
Hi,
I've attached an updated version of the patch.
basebackup.c:1565: warning: format '%lld' expects type 'long long
int', but argument 8 has type '__off_t'
basebackup.c:1565: warning: format '%lld'
Il 02/03/15 14:21, Fujii Masao ha scritto:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Marco Nenciarini
marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
Hi,
I've attached an updated version of the patch.
basebackup.c:1565: warning: format '%lld' expects type 'long long
int', but argument 8 has type '__off_t'
Hi,
I've attached an updated version of the patch. This fixes the issue on
checksum calculation for segments after the first one.
To solve it I've added an optional uint32 *segno argument to
parse_filename_for_nontemp_relation, so I can know the segment number
and calculate the block number
On Sat, January 31, 2015 15:14, Marco Nenciarini wrote:
0001-public-parse_filename_for_nontemp_relation.patch
0002-copydir-LSN-v2.patch
0003-File-based-incremental-backup-v8.patch
Hi,
It looks like it only compiles with assert enabled.
This is perhaps not yet really a problem at this stage
Il 29/01/15 18:57, Robert Haas ha scritto:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Marco Nenciarini
marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
The current implementation of copydir function is incompatible with LSN
based incremental backups. The problem is that new files are created,
but their blocks
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Marco Nenciarini
marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
The current implementation of copydir function is incompatible with LSN
based incremental backups. The problem is that new files are created,
but their blocks are still with the old LSN, so they will not be
The current implementation of copydir function is incompatible with LSN
based incremental backups. The problem is that new files are created,
but their blocks are still with the old LSN, so they will not be backed
up because they are looking old enough.
copydir function is used in:
CREATE
On 2015-01-29 12:57:22 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
The issues here are similar to those in
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150120152819.gc24...@alap3.anarazel.de
- basically, I think we need to make CREATE DATABASE and ALTER
DATABASE .. SET TABLESPACE fully WAL-logged operations, or this
24 matches
Mail list logo