Re: block-level incremental backup

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:56 PM Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

Hi Robert,

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 6:40 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:37 PM Jeevan Ladhe
<jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> +       if (!XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(previous_lsn))
> +           appendStringInfo(labelfile, "PREVIOUS WAL LOCATION: %X/%X\n",
> +                            (uint32) (previous_lsn >> 32), (uint32) previous_lsn);
>
> May be we should rename to something like:
> "INCREMENTAL BACKUP START WAL LOCATION" or simply "INCREMENTAL BACKUP START LOCATION"
> to make it more intuitive?

So, I think that you are right that PREVIOUS WAL LOCATION might not be
entirely clear, but at least in my view, INCREMENTAL BACKUP START WAL
LOCATION is definitely not clear.  This backup is an incremental
backup, and it has a start WAL location, so you'd end up with START
WAL LOCATION and INCREMENTAL BACKUP START WAL LOCATION and those sound
like they ought to both be the same thing, but they're not.  Perhaps
something like REFERENCE WAL LOCATION or REFERENCE WAL LOCATION FOR
INCREMENTAL BACKUP would be clearer.

Agree, how about INCREMENTAL BACKUP REFERENCE WAL LOCATION ?

+1 for INCREMENTAL BACKUP REFERENCE WA.

 

--

Jeevan Chalke
Technical Architect, Product Development
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company