Re: where should I stick that backup? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: where should I stick that backup?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY6dYfmMtQA3Q6BRtpZrC5yd6S3OoU9wGWoEEs2en95SQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: where should I stick that backup?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: where should I stick that backup?  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Re: where should I stick that backup?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 3:38 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Wouldn't there be state like a S3/ssh/https/... connection? And perhaps
> a 'backup_id' in the backup metadata DB that'd one would want to update
> at the end?

Good question. I don't know that there would be but, uh, maybe? It's
not obvious to me why all of that would need to be done using the same
connection, but if it is, the idea I proposed isn't going to work very
nicely.

More generally, can you think of any ideas for how to structure an API
here that are easier to use than "write some C code"? Or do you think
we should tell people to write some C code if they want to
compress/encrypt/relocate their backup in some non-standard way?

For the record, I'm not against eventually having more than one way to
do this, maybe a shell-script interface for simpler things and some
kind of API for more complex needs (e.g. NetBackup integration,
perhaps). And I did wonder if there was some other way we could do
this. For instance, we could add an option --tar-everything that
sticks all the things that would have been returned by the backup
inside another level of tar file and sends the result to stdout. Then
you can pipe it into a single command that gets invoked only once for
all the data, rather than once per tablespace. That might be better,
but I'm not sure it's better. It's better if you want to do
complicated things that involve steps that happen before and after and
persistent connections and so on, but it seems worse for simple things
like piping through a non-default compressor.

Larry Wall somewhat famously commented that a good programming
language should (and I paraphrase) make simple things simple and
complex things possible. My hesitation in going straight to a C API is
that it does not make simple things simple; and I'd like to be really
sure that there is no way of achieving that valuable goal before we
give up on it. However, there is no doubt that a C API is potentially
more powerful.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?
Next
From: James Coleman
Date:
Subject: Re: execExprInterp() questions / How to improve scalar array op expr eval?