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
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 |