At 2015-06-11 14:38:03 +0900, langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, I don't like the idea of doing (3) by adding
> > command line arguments to pg_basebackup and adding a new option to
> > the command. I don't think that level of "flexibility" is justified;
> > it would also
Michael Paquier wrote:
> After spending the night thinking about that, honestly, I think that
> we should go with (2) and keep the base backup as light-weight as
> possible and not bother about a GUC. (3) would need some extra
> intelligence to decide if some files can be skipped or not. Imagine
>
On Jun 11, 2015 7:38 AM, "Amit Langote"
wrote:
>
> On 2015-06-11 PM 02:20, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> > At 2015-06-10 13:22:27 -0400, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> (1) include pg_log in pg_basebackup as we do currently
> >> (2) exclude it
> >> (3) add a switch controlling whether or not i
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> At 2015-06-11 14:28:36 +0900, michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> After spending the night thinking about that, honestly, I think that
>> we should go with (2) and keep the base backup as light-weight as
>> possible and not bother abou
On 2015-06-11 PM 02:20, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> At 2015-06-10 13:22:27 -0400, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> (1) include pg_log in pg_basebackup as we do currently
>> (2) exclude it
>> (3) add a switch controlling whether or not it gets excluded
>>
>> I can live with (3), but I bet most peop
At 2015-06-11 14:28:36 +0900, michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> After spending the night thinking about that, honestly, I think that
> we should go with (2) and keep the base backup as light-weight as
> possible and not bother about a GUC.
OK. Then the patch I posted earlier should be sufficien
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> At 2015-06-10 13:22:27 -0400, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I'm not clear on which of these options you are voting for:
>>
>> (1) include pg_log in pg_basebackup as we do currently
>> (2) exclude it
>> (3) add a switch controlling wh
At 2015-06-10 13:22:27 -0400, robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I'm not clear on which of these options you are voting for:
>
> (1) include pg_log in pg_basebackup as we do currently
> (2) exclude it
> (3) add a switch controlling whether or not it gets excluded
>
> I can live with (3), but I bet
On 06/10/2015 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 06/10/2015 10:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-06-10 09:57:17 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
Mine goal isn't that. My goal is to have a consistent backup without
having to shut down the serve
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 06/10/2015 10:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2015-06-10 09:57:17 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> Mine goal isn't that. My goal is to have a consistent backup without
>>> having to shut down the server to take a cold one, or having to ma
On 06/10/2015 10:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-06-10 09:57:17 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
Mine goal isn't that. My goal is to have a consistent backup without
having to shut down the server to take a cold one, or having to manually
juggle the pg_start_backup, etc. commands.
A basebackup
On 2015-06-10 09:57:17 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> Mine goal isn't that. My goal is to have a consistent backup without
> having to shut down the server to take a cold one, or having to manually
> juggle the pg_start_backup, etc. commands.
A basebackup won't necessarily give you a consistent log t
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> >> Recently, one of our customers has had a basebackup fail because pg_log
> >> contained files that were >8GB:
> >> FATAL: archive member "pg_log/postgresql-20150119.log" too large
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>> Recently, one of our customers has had a basebackup fail because pg_log
>> contained files that were >8GB:
>> FATAL: archive member "pg_log/postgresql-20150119.log" too large for tar
>> format
>>
>> I think pg_basebackup should also skip
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> This is a followup to a 2014-02 discussion that led to pg_stats_temp
> being excluded from pg_basebackup. At the time, it was discussed to
> exclude pg_log as well, but nothing eventually came of that.
It seems to be that:
http://www.pos
Hi.
This is a followup to a 2014-02 discussion that led to pg_stats_temp
being excluded from pg_basebackup. At the time, it was discussed to
exclude pg_log as well, but nothing eventually came of that.
Recently, one of our customers has had a basebackup fail because pg_log
contained files that we
16 matches
Mail list logo