Re: block-level incremental backup

From: Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: block-level incremental backup
Date: 2019-09-09 11:47:39
Message-ID: CAM2+6=UgaOuFFQd5NpS2CF9L0F_9v2LuK+MtN4G2mdhu+HmeeQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 12:11 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:54 PM Jeevan Chalke
> <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> 0003:
> +/*
> + * When to send the whole file, % blocks modified (90%)
> + */
> +#define WHOLE_FILE_THRESHOLD 0.9
>
> How this threshold is selected. Is it by some test?
>

Currently, it is set arbitrarily. If required, we will make it a GUC.

>
> - magic number, currently 0 (4 bytes)
> I think in the patch we are using (#define INCREMENTAL_BACKUP_MAGIC
> 0x494E4352) as a magic number, not 0
>

Yes. Robert too reported this. Updated the commit message.

>
> Can we breakdown this function in 2-3 functions. At least creating a
> file map can directly go to a separate function.
>

Separated out filemap changes to separate function. Rest kept as is to have
an easy followup.

>
> I have read 0003 and 0004 patch and there are few cosmetic comments.
>

Can you please post those too?

Other comments are fixed.

>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dilip Kumar
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>

Thanks
--
Jeevan Chalke
Technical Architect, Product Development
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeevan Chalke 2019-09-09 11:51:34 Re: block-level incremental backup
Previous Message Jeevan Chalke 2019-09-09 11:42:39 Re: block-level incremental backup