On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 09:19:03AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On July 10, 2019 9:12:18 AM PDT, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> That would be fine, if we actually knew. Should we (or have we already?) >> defined a rule that they are not allowed to use the same naming standard >> unless they have the same type of header? > > No, don't think we have already. There's the related problem of > what to include in base backups, too.
Yes. This one needs a careful design and I am not sure exactly what that would be. At least one new callback would be needed, called from basebackup.c to decide if a given file should be backed up or not based on a path. But then how do you make sure that a path applies to one table AM or another, by using a regex given by all table AMs to see if there is a match? How do we handle conflicts? I am not sure either that it is a good design to restrict table AMs to have a given format for paths as that actually limits the possibilities when it comes to split across data across multiple files for attributes and/or tablespaces. (I am a pessimistic guy by nature.) -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
