Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file
Date: 2014-06-03 16:38:26
Message-ID: 16515.1401813506@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Yeah, that is a clear advantage of that method. Didn't read up on pax
> format backwards compatibility, does it have some trick to achieve
> something similar?

I didn't read the fine print but it sounded like the extended header
would look like a separate file entry to a non-aware tar implementation,
which would write it out as a file and then get totally confused when
the length specified in the overlength file's entry didn't match the
amount of data following. So it's a nice solution for some properties
but doesn't fail-soft for file length. Not clear that there's any way
to achieve that though.

Another thought is we could make pg_basebackup simply skip any files that
exceed RELSEG_SIZE, on the principle that you don't really need/want
enormous log files to get copied anyhow. We'd still need the pax
extension if the user had configured large RELSEG_SIZE, but having a
compatible tar could be documented as a requirement of doing that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-06-03 17:37:40 Re: SP-GiST bug.
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-06-03 16:30:31 Re: pg_basebackup failed to back up large file