On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 05:39:36PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > At Fri, 31 Jan 2020 17:30:43 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote in >> I don't think that is a problem right away, of course. It looks good >> to me except for the possible excessive exclusion. So, I don't object >> it if we don't mind that. > > That's a bit wrong. All the discussion is only on excludeFiles. I > think we should refrain from letting more files match to > nohecksumFiles.
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that we should not use a prefix matching for that part? Or are you saying that we should not touch this list at all? Please note that pg_internal.init is listed within noChecksumFiles in basebackup.c, so we would miss any temporary pg_internal.init.PID if we don't check after the file prefix and the base backup would issue extra WARNING messages, potentially masking messages that could matter. So let's fix that as well. I agree that a side effect of this change would be to discard anything prefixed with "backup_label" or "tablespace_map", including any old, renamed files. Do you know of any backup solutions which could be impacted by that? I am adding David Steele and Stephen Frost in CC so as they can comment based on their experience in this area. I recall that backrest stuff uses the replication protocol, but I may be wrong. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
