Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>

To: Asif Rehman <asifr.rehman@gmail.com>

Cc: Hamid Akhtar <hamid.akhtar@gmail.com>, Suraj Kharage <suraj.kharage@enterprisedb.com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com>, Ahsan Hadi <ahsan.hadi@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, David Zhang <david.zhang@highgo.ca>, Kashif Zeeshan <kashif.zeeshan@enterprisedb.com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar.raghuwanshi@enterprisedb.com>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Date: 2020-07-06T12:24:03Z

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 →

Fix failures in incremental_sort due to number of workers
- 23ba3b5ee278 13.0 cited
In jsonb_plpython.c, suppress warning message from gcc 10.
- a06921816370 13.0 cited
Fix minor problems with non-exclusive backup cleanup.
- 303640199d04 13.0 cited

> On 12 Jun 2020, at 19:28, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am sure that nobody is arguing that the patch has to be beneficial
> in all cases in order to justify applying it. However, there are
> several good arguments against proceding with this patch:

This thread has stalled with no resolution to the raised issues, and the latest
version of the patch (v15) posted no longer applies (I only tried 0001 which
failed, the green tick in the CFBot is due it mistakenlt thinking an attached
report is a patch).  I'm marking this patch Returned with Feedback.  Please
open a new CF entry when there is a new version of the patch.

cheers ./daniel