Re: block-level incremental backup

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:29 PM Jeevan Chalke <
jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

Sorry for the typo:
+1 for the INCREMENTAL BACKUP REFERENCE WAL LOCATION.

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

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