Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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 > >

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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 >> >

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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,

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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,

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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.

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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'

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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'

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

[HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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

Re: [HACKERS] File based Incremental backup v8

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