| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Rename backup_label to recovery_control |
| Date: | 2023-10-16 13:43:03 |
| Message-ID: | 873119a4-8a1e-cca0-1729-c05eb26b1f20@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/16/23 00:26, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Mon, 16 Oct 2023 13:16:42 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
>> Just an idea in a slightly different direction, but I'm wondering if
>> we can simply merge the content of backup_label into control file.
>> The file is 8192 bytes long, yet only 256 bytes are used. As a result,
>> we anticipate no overhead. Sucha configuration would forcibly prevent
>> uses from from removing the backup information.
>
> In second thought, that would break the case of file-system level
> backups, which require backup information separately from control
> data.
Exactly -- but we do have a proposal to do the opposite and embed
pg_control into backup_label [1] (or hopefully recovery_control).
Regards,
-David
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1330cb48-4e47-03ca-f2fb-b144b49514d8%40pgmasters.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anton A. Melnikov | 2023-10-16 13:44:27 | Re: remaining sql/json patches |
| Previous Message | jian he | 2023-10-16 12:49:15 | Re: remaining sql/json patches |