Re: trying again to get incremental backup

On 10/19/23 12:05, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 4:08 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Clearly there's a good amount of stuff to sort out here, but we've
>> still got quite a bit of time left before feature freeze so I'd like
>> to have a go at it. Please let me know your thoughts, if you have any.
>
> Apparently, nobody has any thoughts, but here's an updated patch set
> anyway. The main change, other than rebasing, is that I did a bunch
> more documentation work on the main patch (0005). I'm much happier
> with it now, although I expect it may need more adjustments here and
> there as outstanding design questions get settled.
>
> After some thought, I think that it should be fine to commit 0001 and
> 0002 as independent refactoring patches, and I plan to go ahead and do
> that pretty soon unless somebody objects.

0001 looks pretty good to me. The only thing I find a little troublesome
is the repeated construction of file names with/without segment numbers
in ResetUnloggedRelationsInDbspaceDir(), .e.g.:

+ if (segno == 0)
+ snprintf(dstpath, sizeof(dstpath), "%s/%u",
+ dbspacedirname, relNumber);
+ else
+ snprintf(dstpath, sizeof(dstpath), "%s/%u.%u",
+ dbspacedirname, relNumber, segno);

If this happened three times I'd definitely want a helper function, but
even with two I think it would be a bit nicer.

0002 is definitely a good idea. FWIW pgBackRest does this conversion but
also errors if it does not succeed. We have never seen a report of this
error happening in the wild, so I think it must be pretty rare if it
does happen.

Regards,
-David