On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:18 AM Asif Rehman <asifr.rehman@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't foresee memory to be a challenge here. Assuming a database containing 10240
> relation files (that max reach to 10 TB of size), the list will occupy approximately 102MB
> of space in memory. This obviously can be reduced, but it doesn’t seem too bad either.
> One way of doing it is by fetching a smaller set of files and clients can result in the next
> set if the current one is processed; perhaps fetch initially per table space and request for
> next one once the current one is done with.
The more concerning case is when someone has a lot of small files.
> Okay have added throttling_counter as atomic. however a lock is still required
> for throttling_counter%=throttling_sample.
Well, if you can't get rid of the lock, using a atomics is pointless.
>> + sendFile(file, file + basepathlen, &statbuf,
>> true, InvalidOid, NULL, NULL);
>>
>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this looks like it's going to write a
>> tar header, even though we're not writing a tarfile.
>
> sendFile() always sends files with tar header included, even if the backup mode
> is plain. pg_basebackup also expects the same. That's the current behavior of
> the system.
>
> Otherwise, we will have to duplicate this function which would be doing the pretty
> much same thing, except the tar header.
Well, as I said before, the solution to that problem is refactoring,
not crummy interfaces. You're never going to persuade any committer
who understands what that code actually does to commit it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
