> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 13:54, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> >>> I don't think we should necessarily give up completely. But doing a
> >>> pg_basebackup way *first* seems reasonable - because it's going to be
> >>> the easiest one to "get right", given that we have more control there.
> >>> Doesn't mean we shouldn't extend it in the future...
> >>
> >> Agreed. The question is -- how far should we change pg_basebackup to
> >> "get right"? I think it's not difficult to change it so that it backs up
> >> the control file at the end. But eliminating the need for full_page_writes=on
> >> seems not easy. No? So I'm not inclined to do that in at least first commit.
> >> Otherwise, I'm afraid the patch would become huge.
> >
> > It's more server side of base backups than the actual pg_basebackup
> > tool of course, but I'm sure that's what we're all referring to here.
> >
> > Personally, I'd see the fpw stuff as part of the infrastructure
> > needed. Meaning that the fpw stuff should go in *first*, and the
> > pg_basebackup stuff later.
>
> Agreed. I'll extract FPW stuff from the patch that I submitted, and revise it
> as the infrastructure patch.
>
> The changes of pg_start_backup() etc that Ishiduka-san did are also
> a server-side infrastructure. I will extract them as another infrastructure one.
>
> Ishiduka-san, if you have time, feel free to try the above, barring objection.
Done.
Changed the name of the patch.
<Modifications>
So changed to the positioning of infrastructure,
* Removed the documentation.
* changed to an error when you run pg_start/stop_backup() on the standby.
Regards.
--------------------------------------------
Jun Ishizuka
NTT Software Corporation
TEL：045-317-7018
E-Mail: ishizuka.jun@po.ntts.co.jp
--------------------------------------------
