On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:55 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:25:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > I think there's absolutely no point in spending more time on this for
>> > 9.5. At least 4 committers have looked a
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:25:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I think there's absolutely no point in spending more time on this for
> > 9.5. At least 4 committers have looked at it and none of them are
> > convinced by the current desig
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think there's absolutely no point in spending more time on this for
> 9.5. At least 4 committers have looked at it and none of them are
> convinced by the current design; feedback from almost half a year ago
> hasn't been incorporated; obvio
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Gabriele Bartolini
wrote:
>> By the way, unless I'm missing something, this patch only seems to
>> include the code to construct an incremental backup, but no tools
>> whatsoever to do anything useful with it once you've got it.
>
> As stated previously, Marco is wr
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 09:26:38AM +1100, Gabriele Bartolini wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> 2015-03-08 5:37 GMT+11:00 Bruce Momjian :
>
> Desirability -> Design -> Implement -> Test -> Review -> Commit
>
> This patch has continued in development without getting agreement on
> its Des
Hi Robert,
2015-03-07 2:57 GMT+11:00 Robert Haas :
> By the way, unless I'm missing something, this patch only seems to
> include the code to construct an incremental backup, but no tools
> whatsoever to do anything useful with it once you've got it.
As stated previously, Marco is writing a too
Hi Bruce,
2015-03-08 5:37 GMT+11:00 Bruce Momjian :
>
> Desirability -> Design -> Implement -> Test -> Review -> Commit
>
> This patch has continued in development without getting agreement on
> its Desirability or Design, meaning we are going to continue going back
> to those points until
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:10:08AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> But I agree with Fujii to the extent that I see little value in
> committing this patch in the form proposed. Being smart enough to use
> the LSN to identify changed blocks, but then sending the entirety of
> every file anyway because
Il 05/03/15 05:42, Bruce Momjian ha scritto:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 01:25:13PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Yeah, it might make the situation better than today. But I'm afraid that
many users might get disappointed about that behavior of an incremental
backup after the release...
>>>
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Gabriele Bartolini
wrote:
> I believe the main point is to look at a user interface point of view.
> If/When we switch to a block level incremental support, this will be
> completely transparent to the end user, even if we start with a file-level
> approach with LSN
Hi Robert,
2015-03-06 3:10 GMT+11:00 Robert Haas :
> But I agree with Fujii to the extent that I see little value in
> committing this patch in the form proposed. Being smart enough to use
> the LSN to identify changed blocks, but then sending the entirety of
> every file anyway because you don'
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 01:25:13PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> >> Yeah, it might make the situation better than today. But I'm afraid that
>> >> many users might get disappointed about that behavior of an incremental
>> >> backup after the r
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 01:25:13PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> Yeah, it might make the situation better than today. But I'm afraid that
> >> many users might get disappointed about that behavior of an incremental
> >> backup after the release...
> >
> > I don't get what do you mean here. Can you
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Marco Nenciarini
wrote:
> Hi Fujii,
>
> Il 03/03/15 11:48, Fujii Masao ha scritto:
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Marco Nenciarini
>> wrote:
>>> Il 02/03/15 14:21, Fujii Masao ha scritto:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Marco Nenciarini
wrote:
>>>
Hi Fujii,
Il 03/03/15 11:48, Fujii Masao ha scritto:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Marco Nenciarini
> wrote:
>> Il 02/03/15 14:21, Fujii Masao ha scritto:
>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Marco Nenciarini
>>> wrote:
Hi,
I've attached an updated version of the patch.
>>>
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Marco Nenciarini
wrote:
> Il 02/03/15 14:21, Fujii Masao ha scritto:
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Marco Nenciarini
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've attached an updated version of the patch.
>>
>> basebackup.c:1565: warning: format '%lld' expects type 'long l
Il 02/03/15 14:21, Fujii Masao ha scritto:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Marco Nenciarini
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've attached an updated version of the patch.
>
> basebackup.c:1565: warning: format '%lld' expects type 'long long
> int', but argument 8 has type '__off_t'
> basebackup.c:1565:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Marco Nenciarini
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've attached an updated version of the patch.
basebackup.c:1565: warning: format '%lld' expects type 'long long
int', but argument 8 has type '__off_t'
basebackup.c:1565: warning: format '%lld' expects type 'long long
int', but
Hi,
I've attached an updated version of the patch. This fixes the issue on
checksum calculation for segments after the first one.
To solve it I've added an optional uint32 *segno argument to
parse_filename_for_nontemp_relation, so I can know the segment number
and calculate the block number corre
On Sat, January 31, 2015 15:14, Marco Nenciarini wrote:
> 0001-public-parse_filename_for_nontemp_relation.patch
> 0002-copydir-LSN-v2.patch
> 0003-File-based-incremental-backup-v8.patch
Hi,
It looks like it only compiles with assert enabled.
This is perhaps not yet really a problem at this stag
Il 29/01/15 18:57, Robert Haas ha scritto:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Marco Nenciarini
> wrote:
>> The current implementation of copydir function is incompatible with LSN
>> based incremental backups. The problem is that new files are created,
>> but their blocks are still with the old LSN
On 2015-01-29 12:57:22 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> The issues here are similar to those in
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150120152819.gc24...@alap3.anarazel.de
> - basically, I think we need to make CREATE DATABASE and ALTER
> DATABASE .. SET TABLESPACE fully WAL-logged operations, or th
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Marco Nenciarini
wrote:
> The current implementation of copydir function is incompatible with LSN
> based incremental backups. The problem is that new files are created,
> but their blocks are still with the old LSN, so they will not be backed
> up because they are
The current implementation of copydir function is incompatible with LSN
based incremental backups. The problem is that new files are created,
but their blocks are still with the old LSN, so they will not be backed
up because they are looking old enough.
copydir function is used in:
CREATE DATAB
24 matches
Mail list logo
