On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 1:54 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:23 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > While looking at this, I noticed that caller (perform_base_backup) of > > do_pg_start_backup, sets the backup phase as > > PROGRESS_BASEBACKUP_PHASE_WAIT_CHECKPOINT whereas, in > > do_pg_start_backup, we do collect the information about all > > tablespaces after the checkpoint. I am not sure if it is long enough > > that we consider having a separate phase for it. Without your patch, > > it was covered under PROGRESS_BASEBACKUP_PHASE_ESTIMATE_BACKUP_SIZE > > phase which doesn't appear to be a bad idea. > > Maybe I'm confused here, but I think the size estimation still *is* > covered under PROGRESS_BASEBACKUP_PHASE_ESTIMATE_BACKUP_SIZE. It's > just that now that happens a bit later. >
There is no problem with this part. > I'm assuming that listing the > tablespaces is pretty cheap, but sizing them is expensive, as you'd > have to iterate over all the files and stat() each one. > I was trying to say that tablespace listing will happen under PROGRESS_BASEBACKUP_PHASE_WAIT_CHECKPOINT phase which could be a problem if it is a costly operation but as you said it is pretty cheap so I think we don't need to bother about that. Apart from the above point which I think we don't need to bother, both your patches look good to me. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
