Hi hackers!
> 8 авг. 2017 г., в 11:27, Tom Lane написал(а):
>
> My point is not to claim that we mustn't put a hook there. It's that what
> such a hook could safely do is tightly constrained, and you've not offered
> clear evidence that there's something useful to be done within those
> constra
Andrey Borodin writes:
> 7 авг. 2017 г., в 18:37, Tom Lane написал(а):
>> Yeah. Keep in mind that if the extension does anything at all that could
>> possibly throw an error, and if that error condition persists across
>> multiple tries, you will have broken the database completely: it will
>> b
Alvaro, Tom, thank you for your valuable comments.
> Alvaro:
> I remember discussing the topic of differential base-backups with
> somebody (probably Marco and Gabriele). The idea we had was to have a
> new relation fork which stores an LSN for each group of pages,
> indicating the LSN of the ne
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I suppose your hook idea lets you implement the LSN fork in an
> extension, rather than having it be part of core. The idea of hooking
> onto BufferSync makes me uneasy, though -- like it's not the correct
> place to do it.
Yeah. Keep in mind that if the extension does
Андрей Бородин wrote:
> ==What==
> I propose to add hook inside BufferSync() function it inform extensions that
> we
> are going to write pages to disk. Please see patch attached. I pass a
> timestamp
> of the checkpoint, but it would be good if we could also pass there number of
> checkpoint or
Hi, hackers! I want to propose adding hook in BufferSync. ==Why==So that extensions could track pages changed between checkpoints. I think this can allow efficient differential backups taken right after checkpoint. And this functionality can be implemented as an extension. ==What==I propose to add
