On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 4:10 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 9:55 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > To rescue my initdb --rel-segsize project[1] for v18, I will have a go
> > at making that dynamic. It looks like we don't actually need to
> > allocate that until we get to the
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 9:55 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Pushed. That fixes the stack problem.
Cool.
> Of course we still have this:
>
> /*
> * Since this array is relatively large, avoid putting it on the stack.
> * But we don't need it at all if this is not an incremental backup.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 12:11 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 6:21 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Could we just write the blocks directly into the output array, and
> > then transpose them directly in place if start_blkno > 0? See
> > attached. I may be missing something, but the
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 6:21 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> Could we just write the blocks directly into the output array, and
> then transpose them directly in place if start_blkno > 0? See
> attached. I may be missing something, but the only downside I can
> think of is that the output array is
On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 6:53 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> ... We could
> avoid transposing relative block numbers to absolute block numbers
> whenever start_blkno is 0, ...
Could we just write the blocks directly into the output array, and
then transpose them directly in place if start_blkno > 0?
On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 6:53 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> But I think that's really only necessary if we're actually going to
> get rid of the idea of segmented relations altogether, which I don't
> think is happening at least for v17, and maybe not ever.
Yeah, I consider the feedback on ext4's size
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 6:29 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2024-Mar-06, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Even on the heap, 16GB is too much to assume we can allocate during a
> > base backup. I don't claim that's a real-world problem for
> > incremental backup right now in master, because I don't have any
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:44 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> I'll have to move that sucker onto the heap (we banned C99 variable
> length arrays and we don't use nonstandard alloca()), but I think the
> coding in master is already a bit dodgy: that's 131072 *
> sizeof(BlockNumber) = 512kB with default
On 2024-Mar-06, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Even on the heap, 16GB is too much to assume we can allocate during a
> base backup. I don't claim that's a real-world problem for
> incremental backup right now in master, because I don't have any
> evidence that anyone ever really uses --with-segsize (do
Hi Robert,
I was rebasing my patch to convert RELSEG_SIZE into an initdb-time
setting, and thus runtime variable, and I noticed this stack variable
in src/backend/backup/basebackup_incremental.c:
GetFileBackupMethod(IncrementalBackupInfo *ib, const char *path,
10 matches
Mail list logo
