Re: File based Incremental backup v9 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Marco Nenciarini
Subject Re: File based Incremental backup v9
Date
Msg-id 54D09CF2.7070606@2ndquadrant.it
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: File based Incremental backup v9  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Il 02/02/15 22:28, Magnus Hagander ha scritto:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com
> <mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Marco Nenciarini
>     <marco.nenciarini@2ndquadrant.it
>     <mailto:marco.nenciarini@2ndquadrant.it>> wrote:
>     > Il 31/01/15 17:22, Erik Rijkers ha scritto:
>     >> On Sat, January 31, 2015 15:14, Marco Nenciarini wrote:
>     >>
>     >>> 0001-public-parse_filename_for_nontemp_relation.patch
>     >>> 0002-copydir-LSN-v2.patch
>     >>> 0003-File-based-incremental-backup-v8.patch
>     >>
>     >> Hi,
>     >>
>     >> It looks like it only compiles with assert enabled.
>     >>
>     >
>     > It is due to a typo (assert instead of Assert). You can find the updated
>     > patch attached to this message.
>
>     I would sure like it if you would avoid changing the subject line
>     every time you post a new version of this patch.  It breaks the
>     threading for me.
>
>
> +1 - it does break gmail.

Ok, sorry for that.

>
>
>
>     It seems to have also broken it for the CommitFest app, which thinks
>     v3 is the last version.  I was not able to attach the new version.
>
>
> The CF app has detected that it's the same thread, because of the
> headers (gmail is the buggy one here - the headers of the email are
> perfectly correct).
>
> It does not, however, pick up and show the change of subject there (but
> you can see if if you click the link for the latest version into the
> archives - the link under "latest" or "latest attachment" both go to the
> v9 patch).
>
>
>
>     When I clicked on "attach thread" without having logged in, it took me
>     to a bad URL.  When I clicked on it after having logged in, it
>
>
> Clearly a bug.
>
>
>
>     purported to work, but AFAICS, it didn't actually do anything.
>
>
> That's because the thread is already there, and you're adding it again.
> Of course, it wouldn't hurt if it actually told you that :)
>

I'm also confused from the "(Patch: No)" part at the end of every line
if you expand the last attachment line.

Every message shown here contains one or more patch attached.

Regards,
Marco

--
Marco Nenciarini - 2ndQuadrant Italy
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
marco.nenciarini@2ndQuadrant.it | www.2ndQuadrant.it


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: How about to have relnamespace and relrole?
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0