| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Large files for relations |
| Date: | 2024-03-06 21:54:46 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGJ0mkNhXp0OvGf=wQPYYhtVB7rQOrAwftZV2ittTHpQGw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Rebased. I had intended to try to get this into v17, but a couple of
unresolved problems came up while rebasing over the new incremental
backup stuff. You snooze, you lose. Hopefully we can sort these out
in time for the next commitfest:
* should pg_combinebasebackup read the control file to fetch the segment size?
* hunt for other segment-size related problems that may be lurking in
new incremental backup stuff
* basebackup_incremental.c wants to use memory in proportion to
segment size, which looks like a problem, and I wrote about that in a
new thread[1]
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-Allow-relation-segment-size-to-be-set-by-initdb.patch | application/x-patch | 51.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-03-06 22:22:51 | Re: vacuumdb/clusterdb/reindexdb: allow specifying objects to process in all databases |
| Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2024-03-06 21:51:18 | Re: Optimizing nbtree ScalarArrayOp execution, allowing multi-column ordered scans, skip scan |