On 12/11/12 at 15:29 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 09:55:33AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > $ grep -lr udd-bugs.sql /srv/udd.debian.org/udd > > /srv/udd.debian.org/udd/scripts/clone_udd_bugs_fetch.sh > > /srv/udd.debian.org/udd/scripts/dump-db.sh > > /srv/udd.debian.org/udd/scripts/clone_udd_bugs_inject.sh > > Uhhh, very easy - I coudl have sworn I have done this before my posting. > :-( > > So I applied the following patch: > > diff --git a/scripts/dump-db.sh b/scripts/dump-db.sh > index 6867247..5308bf9 100755 > --- a/scripts/dump-db.sh > +++ b/scripts/dump-db.sh > @@ -7,5 +7,9 @@ pg_dump --no-owner -p 5452 -n history udd | gzip > > udd-history.sql.gz.new > mv udd-history.sql.gz.new udd-history.sql.gz > pg_dump --no-owner -p 5452 -T ldap -T really_active_dds -T pts udd | gzip > > udd.sql.gz.new > mv udd.sql.gz.new udd.sql.gz > -pg_dump --no-owner -p 5452 -t bugs -t bugs_blockedby -t bugs_blocks -t > bugs_fixed_in -t bugs_found_in -t bugs_merged_with -t bugs_packages -t > bugs_tags -t bugs_usertags udd |gzip > udd-bugs.sql.gz.new > +pg_dump --no-owner -p 5452 \ > + -t bugs -t bugs_blockedby -t bugs_blocks -t bugs_fixed_in -t > bugs_found_in -t bugs_merged_with -t bugs_packages -t bugs_tags -t > bugs_usertags \ > + -t archived_bugs -t archived_bugs_packages -t > archived_bugs_merged_with -t archived_bugs_found_in -t archived_bugs_fixed_in > -t archived_bugs_tags -t archived_bugs_blocks -t archived_bugs_blockedby \ > + udd |gzip > udd-bugs.sql.gz.new > mv udd-bugs.sql.gz.new udd-bugs.sql.gz > + > > > However, before I might move it effectively into action I would like to > stress that the change turns the udd-bugs.sql.gz from previousely less > than 10MB to 65MB (in other words more than 10% of a full dump). Do you > think this is acceptable?
Yes > BTW, I also tried xz compression which turns original 65MB into 35MB. I > don't know about what you might care much - processing time at > udd.debian.org or bandwith - but may be that might be an option > (probably even more for udd.sql because more people might download > this.) In case it helps deciding I might add the comparison of time > needed to compress using gz and xz. I don't really care about any of those, since the compression is only run once a day anyway. It probably makes sense to continue to use .gz as switching to .xz would require notifying users of the .gz file. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121113085338.gc23...@xanadu.blop.info
