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
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's not happening, because the WAL summarizer
doesn't see the XLOG_DBA
