On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 13:54, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >>> I don't think we should necessarily give up completely. But doing a >>> pg_basebackup way *first* seems reasonable - because it's going to be >>> the easiest one to "get right", given that we have more control there. >>> Doesn't mean we shouldn't extend it in the future... >> >> Agreed. The question is -- how far should we change pg_basebackup to >> "get right"? I think it's not difficult to change it so that it backs up >> the control file at the end. But eliminating the need for full_page_writes=on >> seems not easy. No? So I'm not inclined to do that in at least first commit. >> Otherwise, I'm afraid the patch would become huge. > > It's more server side of base backups than the actual pg_basebackup > tool of course, but I'm sure that's what we're all referring to here. > > Personally, I'd see the fpw stuff as part of the infrastructure > needed. Meaning that the fpw stuff should go in *first*, and the > pg_basebackup stuff later.
Agreed. I'll extract FPW stuff from the patch that I submitted, and revise it as the infrastructure patch. The changes of pg_start_backup() etc that Ishiduka-san did are also a server-side infrastructure. I will extract them as another infrastructure one. Ishiduka-san, if you have time, feel free to try the above, barring objection. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
