From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |
Date: | 2023-09-05 15:05:01 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobB_XFZg4xcvN+JdfG5qes=CT30CQPhqkN8kCm3MEF0iQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 8:42 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Can't we think of comparing at the block level, like we can compare
> each block but ignore the content of the hole?
We could do that, but I don't think that's a full solution. I think
I'd end up having to reimplement the equivalent of heap_mask,
btree_mask, et. al. in Perl, which doesn't seem very reasonable. It's
fairly complicated logic even written in C, and doing the right thing
in Perl would be more complex, I think, because it wouldn't have
access to all the same #defines which depend on things like word size
and Endianness and stuff. If we want to allow this sort of comparison,
I feel we should think of changing the C code in some way to make it
work reliably rather than try to paper over the problems in Perl.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | jacktby jacktby | 2023-09-05 15:09:35 | Re: How to add a new pg oid? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-09-05 14:41:02 | Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning |