Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file
Date: 2014-09-10 22:02:43
Message-ID: 20140910220243.GA16199@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:17:41AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Another thought is we could make pg_basebackup simply skip any files
> that
> >> exceed RELSEG_SIZE, on the principle that you don't really need/want
> >> enormous log files to get copied anyhow.  We'd still need the pax
> >> extension if the user had configured large RELSEG_SIZE, but having a
> >> compatible tar could be documented as a requirement of doing that.
>
> > I think going all the way to pax is the proper long-term thing to do, at
> > least if we can confirm it works in the main tar implementations.
>
> > For backpatchable that seems more reasonable. It doesn't work today, and
> we
> > just need to document that it doesn't, with larger RELSEG_SIZE. And then
> > fix it properly for the future.
>
> Agreed, this would be a reasonable quick fix that we could replace in
> 9.5 or later.
>
>
>
> Fujii, are you going to be able to work on this with the now expanded scope? :)

Is this a TODO or doc item?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2014-09-10 23:25:12 Re: pg_control is missing a field for LOBLKSIZE
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2014-09-10 21:53:10 Re: [BUGS] BUG #10823: Better REINDEX syntax.