Re: cleanup patches for incremental backup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: cleanup patches for incremental backup
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZd=pYk0owL4W2f4to9qFjwq_NmGJzXg44pEcMxuYriCA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: cleanup patches for incremental backup  (Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: cleanup patches for incremental backup
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 3:31 PM Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> Off-list I was notified that the new WAL summarizer process was not
> yet added to the glossary, so PFA a patch that does that.
> In passing, it also adds "incremental backup" to the glossary, and
> updates the documented types of backends in monitoring.sgml with the
> new backend type, too.

I wonder if it's possible that you sent the wrong version of this
patch, because:

(1) The docs don't build with this applied. I'm not sure if it's the
only problem, but <glossterm linkend="glossary-db-cluster" is missing
the closing >.

(2) The changes to monitoring.sgml contain an unrelated change, about
pg_stat_all_indexes.idx_scan.

Also, I think the "For more information, see <xref linkend="whatever"
/> bit should have a period after the markup tag, as we seem to do in
other cases.

One other thought is that the incremental backup only replaces
relation files with incremental files, and it never does anything
about FSM files. So the statement that it only contains data that was
potentially changed isn't quite correct. It might be better to phrase
it the other way around i.e. it is like a full backup, except that
some files can be replaced by incremental files which omit blocks to
which no WAL-logged changes have been made.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: Custom explain options
Next
From: Maiquel Grassi
Date:
Subject: RE: New Window Function: ROW_NUMBER_DESC() OVER() ?