From: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |
Date: | 2023-12-21 04:00:01 |
Message-ID: | 061cccf7-0cac-804f-4c2a-9d6da8e3848b@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Robert,
20.12.2023 23:56, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 8:11 AM Jakub Wartak
> <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> the v15 patchset (posted yesterday) test results are GOOD:
> All right. I committed the main two patches, dropped the
> for-testing-only patch, and added a simple test to the remaining
> pg_walsummary patch. That needs more work, but here's what I have as
> of now.
I've found several typos/inconsistencies introduced with 174c48050 and
dc2123400. Maybe you would want to fix them, while on it?:
s/arguent/argument/;
s/BlkRefTableEntry/BlockRefTableEntry/;
s/BlockRefTablEntry/BlockRefTableEntry/;
s/Caonicalize/Canonicalize/;
s/Checksum_Algorithm/Checksum-Algorithm/;
s/corresonding/corresponding/;
s/differenly/differently/;
s/excessing/excessive/;
s/ exta / extra /;
s/hexademical/hexadecimal/;
s/initally/initially/;
s/MAXGPATH/MAXPGPATH/;
s/overrreacting/overreacting/;
s/old_meanifest_file/old_manifest_file/;
s/pg_cominebackup/pg_combinebackup/;
s/pg_tblpc/pg_tblspc/;
s/pointrs/pointers/;
s/Recieve/Receive/;
s/recieved/received/;
s/ recod / record /;
s/ recods / records /;
s/substntially/substantially/;
s/sumamry/summary/;
s/summry/summary/;
s/synchronizaton/synchronization/;
s/sytem/system/;
s/withot/without/;
s/Woops/Whoops/;
s/xlograder/xlogreader/;
Also, a comment above MaybeRemoveOldWalSummaries() basically repeats a
comment above redo_pointer_at_last_summary_removal declaration, but
perhaps it should say about removing summaries instead?
Best regards,
Alexander
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-12-21 04:03:29 | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-12-21 03:25:19 | Re: Add new for_each macros for iterating over a List that do not require ListCell pointer |