On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:17:41AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > I think going all the way to pax is the proper long-term thing to do, at
> > least if we can confirm it works in the main tar implementations.
>
> > For backpatchable that seems more reasonable. It doesn't work today, and
> we
> > just need to document that it doesn't, with larger RELSEG_SIZE. And then
> > fix it properly for the future.
>
> Agreed, this would be a reasonable quick fix that we could replace in
> 9.5 or later.
>
>
>
> Fujii, are you going to be able to work on this with the now expanded scope? :)
Is this a TODO or doc item?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +