On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 12:10 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> Agreed, those don't touch relation data files. I think you've got all
> relation data file mutations. XLOG_DBASE_CREATE_FILE_COPY and XLOG_DBASE_DROP
> are the only record types that touch a relation data file without mentioning
> it in XLogRe
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 04:16:24PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 10:05 AM Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 08:47:52PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > I thought about whether there were any other WAL records that have
> > > similar problems to XLOG_DBASE_CREATE_FI
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 10:05 AM Noah Misch wrote:
> Regarding records the summarizer potentially can't ignore that don't deal in
> relfilenodes, these come to mind:
>
> XLOG_DBASE_DROP - covered in this thread's patch
> XLOG_RELMAP_UPDATE
> XLOG_TBLSPC_CREATE
> XLOG_TBLSPC_DROP
> XLOG_XACT_PREPAR
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 08:47:52PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> If XLOG_DBASE_CREATE_FILE_COPY occurs between an incremental backup
> and its reference backup, every relation whose DB OID and tablespace
> OID match the corresponding values in that record should be backed up
> in full. Currently that
