> On Jul 8, 2021, at 8:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The interesting
> patches in terms of functionality are 0006 and 0007;
The difficulty in v3-0007 with pg_basebackup only knowing how to parse tar
archives seems to be a natural consequence of not sufficiently abstracting out
the handling of the tar format. If the bbsink and bbstreamer abstractions
fully encapsulated a set of parsing callbacks, then pg_basebackup wouldn't
contain things like:
streamer = bbstreamer_tar_parser_new(streamer);
but instead would use the parser callbacks without knowledge of whether they
were parsing tar vs. cpio vs. whatever. It just seems really odd that
pg_basebackup is using the extensible abstraction layer and then defeating the
purpose by knowing too much about the format. It might even be a useful
exercise to write cpio support into this patch set rather than waiting until
v16, just to make sure the abstraction layer doesn't have tar-specific
assumptions left over.
printf(_(" -F, --format=p|t output format (plain (default),
tar)\n"));
printf(_(" -z, --gzip compress tar output\n"));
printf(_(" -Z, --compress=0-9 compress tar output with given
compression level\n"));
This is the pre-existing --help output, not changed by your patch, but if you
anticipate that other output formats will be supported in future releases,
perhaps it's better not to write the --help output in such a way as to imply
that -z and -Z are somehow connected with the choice of tar format? Would
changing the --help now make for less confusion later? I'm just asking...
The new options to pg_basebackup should have test coverage in
src/bin/pg_basebackup/t/010_pg_basebackup.pl, though I expect you are waiting
to hammer out the interface before writing the tests.
> the rest is
> preparatory refactoring.
patch v3-0001:
The new function AppendPlainCommandOption writes too many spaces, which does no
harm, but seems silly, resulting in lines like:
LOG: received replication command: BASE_BACKUP ( LABEL 'pg_basebackup base
backup', PROGRESS, WAIT 0, MANIFEST 'yes')
patch v3-0003:
The introduction of the sink abstraction seems incomplete, as basebackup.c
still has knowledge of things like tar headers. Calls like
_tarWriteHeader(sink, ...) feel like an abstraction violation. I expected
perhaps this would get addressed in later patches, but it doesn't.
+ * 'bbs_buffer' is the buffer into which data destined for the bbsink
+ * should be stored. It must be a multiple of BLCKSZ.
+ *
+ * 'bbs_buffer_length' is the allocated length of the buffer.
The length must be a multiple of BLCKSZ, not the pointer.
patch-v3-0005:
+ * 'copystream' sends a starts a single COPY OUT operation and transmits
too many verbs.
+ * Regardless of which method is used, we sent a result set with
"is used" vs. "sent" verb tense mismatch.
+ * So we only check it after the number of bytes sine the last check reaches
typo. s/sine/since/
- * (2) we need to inject backup_manifest or recovery configuration into it.
+ * (2) we need to inject backup_manifest or recovery configuration into
+ * it.
src/bin/pg_basebackup/pg_basebackup.c contains word wrap changes like the above
which would better be left to a different commit, if done at all.
+ if (state.manifest_file !=NULL)
Need a space after !=
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
