From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: trying again to get incremental backup
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 20:03:01 +0100
Message-ID: <202311201903.j3r4qidaxtkc@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmobsXQV3n10=R5PGhwnMEjtGt7AFu9EuxCCf1MwXMGgRnQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 2023-Nov-16, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 12:23 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > I don't understand this point. Currently, the protocol is that
> > UPLOAD_MANIFEST is used to send the manifest prior to requesting the
> > backup. You seem to be saying that you're thinking of removing support
> > for UPLOAD_MANIFEST and instead just give the LSN as an option to the
> > BASE_BACKUP command?
>
> I don't think I'd want to do exactly that, because then you could only
> send one LSN, and I do think we want to send a set of LSN ranges with
> the corresponding TLI for each. I was thinking about dumping
> UPLOAD_MANIFEST and instead having a command like:
>
> INCREMENTAL_WAL_RANGE 1 2/462AC48 2/462C698
>
> The client would execute this command one or more times before
> starting an incremental backup.
That sounds good to me. Not having to parse the manifest server-side
sounds like a win, as does saving the transfer, for the cases where the
manifest is large.
Is this meant to support multiple timelines each with non-overlapping
adjacent ranges, rather than multiple non-adjacent ranges?
Do I have it right that you want to rewrite this bit before considering
this ready to commit?
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"No nos atrevemos a muchas cosas porque son difíciles,
pero son difíciles porque no nos atrevemos a hacerlas" (Séneca)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, robertmhaas@gmail.com, dilipbalaut@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de
Subject: Re: trying again to get incremental backup
In-Reply-To: <202311201903.j3r4qidaxtkc@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox