On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 5:01 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 08:23:25PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > That leads to the attached patches, the first of which I'd want to back-patch.
>
> Makes sense.
> ...
> This should also work for plain files, so that looks fine to me.
Thanks. Pushed. Also CC'ing Alvaro who expressed an interest in this
problem[1].
> > Unfortunately while testing this I realised there is something else
> > wrong here: if you take a basebackup using tar format, in-place
> > tablespaces are skipped (they should get their own OID.tar file, but
> > they don't, also no error). While it wasn't one of my original goals
> > for in-place tablespaces to work in every way (and I'm certain some
> > external tools would be confused by them), it seems we're pretty close
> > so we should probably figure out that piece of the puzzle. It may be
> > obvious why but I didn't have time to dig into that today... perhaps
> > instead of just skipping the readlink() we should be writing something
> > different into the mapfile and then restoring as appropriate...
>
> Yeah, I saw that in-place tablespaces were part of the main tarball in
> base backups as we rely on the existence of a link to decide if the
> contents of a path should be separated in a different tarball or not.
> This does not strike me as a huge problem in itself, TBH, as the
> improvement would be limited to make sure that the base backups could
> be correctly restored with multiple tablespaces. And you can get
> pretty much the same amount of coverage to make sure that the backup
> contents are correct without fully restoring them.
Are they in the main tar file, or are they just missing?
[1] https://postgr.es/m/20220721111751.x7hod2xgrd76xr5c%40alvherre.pgsql
