Re: trying again to get incremental backup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: trying again to get incremental backup
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmob9Q-MNzXT71kxvd+=kOGPxb+s_5av3WjP0Qxa=XFg0PA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: trying again to get incremental backup  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 12:34 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> Putting those two thoughts together, I think pg_basebackup with
> --progress could tell you "still waiting for the summary file up to LSN
> %X/%X to appear, and the walsummarizer is currently handling lsn %X/%X"
> or something like that.  This would probably require two concurrent
> connections, one to run BASE_BACKUP and another to inquire server state;
> but this should easy enough to integrate together with parallel
> basebackup later.

I had similar thoughts, except I was thinking it would be better to
have the warnings be generated on the server side. That would save the
need for a second libpq connection, which would be good, because I
think adding that would result in a pretty large increase in
complexity and some not-so-great user-visible consequences. In fact,
my latest thought is to just remove the timeout altogether, and emit
warnings like this:

WARNING:  still waiting for WAL summarization to reach %X/%X after %d
seconds, currently at %X/%X

We could emit that every 30 seconds or so until either the situation
resolves itself or the user hits ^C. I think that would be good enough
here. If we want, the interval between messages can be a GUC, but I
don't know how much real need there will be to tailor that.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE uses a bistate but not for toast tables
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Wrong rows estimations with joins of CTEs slows queries by more than factor 500