Re: block-level incremental backup
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>,
Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>,
vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>,
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-09-05T03:25:46Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Don't call data type input functions in GUC check hooks
- 21f428ebde39 12.0 cited
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:08 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > For generating a > > file, you can always emit the newest and "best" tar format, but for > > reading a file, you probably want to be prepared for older or cruftier > > variants. Maybe not -- I'm not super-familiar with the tar on-disk > > format. But I think there must be a reason why tar libraries exist, > > and I don't want to write a new one. > > We need to be sure as well that the library chosen does not block > access to a feature in all the various platforms we have. Well, again, my preference is to just not make this particular feature work natively with tar files. Then I don't need to choose a library, so the question is moot. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company