| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Asif Rehman <asifr(dot)rehman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup |
| Date: | 2019-11-27 19:57:27 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobNjxs46Q+hZ9Lv7i_mYqAkh2GGc1Xi4_EkYQEcVQez=Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:38 AM Jeevan Chalke
<jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I am still not sure why we need SEND_BACKUP_FILELIST as a separate command.
> Can't we return the file list with START_BACKUP itself?
I had the same thought, but I think it's better to keep them separate.
Somebody might want to use the SEND_BACKUP_FILELIST command for
something other than a backup (I actually think it should be called
just SEND_FILE_LIST). Somebody might want to start a backup without
getting a file list because they're going to copy the files at the FS
level. Somebody might want to get a list of files to process after
somebody else has started the backup on another connection. Or maybe
nobody wants to do any of those things, but it doesn't seem to cost us
much of anything to split the commands, so I think we should.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-11-27 21:09:57 | Re: Collation versioning |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-11-27 18:41:59 | Re: pglz performance |