On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Marco Nenciarini <marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it> wrote: > Il 04/10/14 08:35, Michael Paquier ha scritto: >> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Marco Nenciarini >> <marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it> wrote: >>> Compared to first version, we switched from a timestamp+checksum based >>> approach to one based on LSN. >> Cool. >> >>> This patch adds an option to pg_basebackup and to replication protocol >>> BASE_BACKUP command to generate a backup_profile file. It is almost >>> useless by itself, but it is the foundation on which we will build the >>> file based incremental backup (and hopefully a block based incremental >>> backup after it). >> Hm. I am not convinced by the backup profile file. What's wrong with >> having a client send only an LSN position to get a set of files (or >> partial files filed with blocks) newer than the position given, and >> have the client do all the rebuild analysis? >> > > The main problem I see is the following: how a client can detect a > truncated or removed file?
When you take a differential backup, the server needs to send some piece of information about every file so that the client can compare that list against what it already has. But a full backup does not need to include similar information. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
