On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 6:06 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 8:48 AM Asif Rehman <asifr.reh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sure. Though the backup manifest patch calculates and includes the
> checksum of backup files and is done
> > while the file is being transferred to the frontend-end. The manifest
> file itself is copied at the
> > very end of the backup. In parallel backup, I need the list of filenames
> before file contents are transferred, in
> > order to divide them into multiple workers. For that, the manifest file
> has to be available when START_BACKUP
> > is called.
> >
> > That means, backup manifest should support its creation while excluding
> the checksum during START_BACKUP().
> > I also need the directory information as well for two reasons:
> >
> > - In plain format, base path has to exist before we can write the file.
> we can extract the base path from the file
> > but doing that for all files does not seem a good idea.
> > - base backup does not include the content of some directories but those
> directories although empty, are still
> > expected in PGDATA.
> >
> > I can make these changes part of parallel backup (which would be on top
> of backup manifest patch) or
> > these changes can be done as part of manifest patch and then parallel
> can use them.
> >
> > Robert what do you suggest?
>
> I think we should probably not use backup manifests here, actually. I
> initially thought that would be a good idea, but after further thought
> it seems like it just complicates the code to no real benefit. I
> suggest that the START_BACKUP command just return a result set, like a
> query, with perhaps four columns: file name, file type ('d' for
> directory or 'f' for file), file size, file mtime. pg_basebackup will
> ignore the mtime, but some other tools might find that useful
> information.
>
> I wonder if we should also split START_BACKUP (which should enter
> non-exclusive backup mode) from GET_FILE_LIST, in case some other
> client program wants to use one of those but not the other. I think
> that's probably a good idea, but not sure.
>
> I still think that the files should be requested one at a time, not a
> huge long list in a single command.
>
What about have an API to get the single file or list of files? We will use
a single file in
our application and other tools can get the benefit of list of files.
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>
>
--
Ibrar Ahmed
