Re: block-level incremental backup

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:56 PM Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 6:40 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:37 PM Jeevan Ladhe
>> <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> > + if (!XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(previous_lsn))
>> > + appendStringInfo(labelfile, "PREVIOUS WAL LOCATION:
>> %X/%X\n",
>> > + (uint32) (previous_lsn >> 32), (uint32)
>> previous_lsn);
>> >
>> > May be we should rename to something like:
>> > "INCREMENTAL BACKUP START WAL LOCATION" or simply "INCREMENTAL BACKUP
>> START LOCATION"
>> > to make it more intuitive?
>>
>> So, I think that you are right that PREVIOUS WAL LOCATION might not be
>> entirely clear, but at least in my view, INCREMENTAL BACKUP START WAL
>> LOCATION is definitely not clear. This backup is an incremental
>> backup, and it has a start WAL location, so you'd end up with START
>> WAL LOCATION and INCREMENTAL BACKUP START WAL LOCATION and those sound
>> like they ought to both be the same thing, but they're not. Perhaps
>> something like REFERENCE WAL LOCATION or REFERENCE WAL LOCATION FOR
>> INCREMENTAL BACKUP would be clearer.
>>
>
> Agree, how about INCREMENTAL BACKUP REFERENCE WAL LOCATION ?
>

+1 for INCREMENTAL BACKUP REFERENCE WA.

>

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