Compression option handling (level, algorithm or even workers) can be
used across several parts of the system and not only base backups.
Structures, objects and routines are renamed in consequence, to remove
the concept of base backups from this part of the code making this
change straight-forward.
pg_receivewal, that has gained support for LZ4 since babbbb5, will make
use of this infrastructure for its set of compression options, bringing
more consistency with pg_basebackup. This cleanup needs to be done
before releasing a beta of 15. pg_dump is a potential future target, as
well, and adding more compression options to it may happen in 16~.
Author: Michael Paquier
Reviewed-by: Robert Haas, Georgios Kokolatos
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/YlPQGNAAa04raObK@paquier.xyz
There are more compression parameters that can be specified than just
an integer compression level, so rename the new COMPRESSION_LEVEL
option to COMPRESSION_DETAIL before it gets released. Introduce a
flexible syntax for that option to allow arbitrary options to be
specified without needing to adjust the main replication grammar,
and common code to parse it that is shared between the client and
the server.
This commit doesn't actually add any new compression parameters,
so the only user-visible change is that you can now type something
like pg_basebackup --compress gzip:level=5 instead of writing just
pg_basebackup --compress gzip:5. However, it should make it easy to
add new options. If for example gzip starts offering fries, we can
support pg_basebackup --compress gzip:level=5,fries=true for the
benefit of users who want fries with that.
Along the way, this fixes a few things in pg_basebackup so that the
pg_basebackup can be used with a server-side compression algorithm
that pg_basebackup itself does not understand. For example,
pg_basebackup --compress server-lz4 could still succeed even if
only the server and not the client has LZ4 support, provided that
the other options to pg_basebackup don't require the client to
decompress the archive.
Patch by me. Reviewed by Justin Pryzby and Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYvpetyRAbbg1M8b3-iHsaN4nsgmWPjOENu5-doHuJ7fA@mail.gmail.com
Both client-side compression and server-side compression are now
supported for zstd. In addition, a backup compressed by the server
using zstd can now be decompressed by the client in order to
accommodate the use of -Fp.
Jeevan Ladhe, with some edits by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmobyzfbz=gyze2_LL1ZumZunmaEKbHQxjrFkOR7APZGu-g@mail.gmail.com
LZ4 compression can be a lot faster than gzip compression, so users
may prefer it even if the compression ratio is not as good. We will
want pg_basebackup to support LZ4 compression and decompression on the
client side as well, and there is a pending patch for that, but it's
by a different author, so I am committing this part separately for
that reason.
Jeevan Ladhe, reviewed by Tushar Ahuja and by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CANm22Cg9cArXEaYgHVZhCnzPLfqXCZLAzjwTq7Fc0quXRPfbxA@mail.gmail.com
pg_basebackup's --compression option now lets you write either
"client-gzip" or "server-gzip" instead of just "gzip" to specify
where the compression should be performed. If you write simply
"gzip" it's taken to mean "client-gzip" unless you also use
--target, in which case it is interpreted to mean "server-gzip",
because that's the only thing that makes any sense in that case.
To make this work, the BASE_BACKUP command now takes new
COMPRESSION and COMPRESSION_LEVEL options.
At present, pg_basebackup cannot decompress .gz files, so
server-side compression will cause a failure if (1) -Ft is not
used or (2) -R is used or (3) -D- is used without --no-manifest.
Along the way, I removed the information message added by commit
5c649fe153 which occurred if you
specified no compression level and told you that the default level
had been used instead. That seemed like more output than most
people would want.
Also along the way, this adds a check to the server for
unrecognized base backup options. This repairs a bug introduced
by commit 0ba281cb4b.
This commit also adds some new test cases for pg_verifybackup.
They take a server-side backup with and without compression, and
then extract the backup if we have the OS facilities available
to do so, and then run pg_verifybackup on the extracted
directory. That is a good test of the functionality added by
this commit and also improves test coverage for the backup target
patch (commit 3500ccc39b) and for
pg_verifybackup itself.
Patch by me, with a bug fix by Jeevan Ladhe. The patch set of which
this is a part has also had review and/or testing from Tushar Ahuja,
Suraj Kharage, Dipesh Pandit, and Mark Dilger.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoa-ST7fMLsVJduOB7Eub=2WjfpHS+QxHVEpUoinf4bOSg@mail.gmail.com
pg_basebackup now has a --target=TARGET[:DETAIL] option. If specfied,
it is sent to the server as the value of the TARGET option to the
BASE_BACKUP command. If DETAIL is included, it is sent as the value of
the new TARGET_DETAIL option to the BASE_BACKUP command. If the
target is anything other than 'client', pg_basebackup assumes that it
will now be the server's job to write the backup in a location somehow
defined by the target, and that it therefore needs to write nothing
locally. However, the server will still send messages to the client
for progress reporting purposes.
On the server side, we now support two additional types of backup
targets. There is a 'blackhole' target, which just throws away the
backup data without doing anything at all with it. Naturally, this
should only be used for testing and debugging purposes, since you will
not actually have a backup when it finishes running. More usefully,
there is also a 'server' target, so you can now use something like
'pg_basebackup -Xnone -t server:/SOME/PATH' to write a backup to some
location on the server. We can extend this to more types of targets
in the future, and might even want to create an extensibility
mechanism for adding new target types.
Since WAL fetching is handled with separate client-side logic, it's
not part of this mechanism; thus, backups with non-default targets
must use -Xnone or -Xfetch.
Patch by me, with a bug fix by Jeevan Ladhe. The patch set of which
this is a part has also had review and/or testing from Tushar Ahuja,
Suraj Kharage, Dipesh Pandit, and Mark Dilger.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoaYZbz0=Yk797aOJwkGJC-LK3iXn+wzzMx7KdwNpZhS5g@mail.gmail.com
In the new approach, all files across all tablespaces are sent in a
single COPY OUT operation. The CopyData messages are no longer raw
archive content; rather, each message is prefixed with a type byte
that describes its purpose, e.g. 'n' signifies the start of a new
archive and 'd' signifies archive or manifest data. This protocol
is significantly more extensible than the old approach, since we can
later create more message types, though not without concern for
backward compatibility.
The new protocol sends a few things to the client that the old one
did not. First, it sends the name of each archive explicitly, instead
of letting the client compute it. This is intended to make it easier
to write future patches that might send archives in a format other
that tar (e.g. cpio, pax, tar.gz). Second, it sends explicit progress
messages rather than allowing the client to assume that progress is
defined by the number of bytes received. This will help with future
features where the server compresses the data, or sends it someplace
directly rather than transmitting it to the client.
The old protocol is still supported for compatibility with previous
releases. The new protocol is selected by means of a new
TARGET option to the BASE_BACKUP command. Currently, the
only supported target is 'client'. Support for additional
targets will be added in a later commit.
Patch by me. The patch set of which this is a part has had review
and/or testing from Jeevan Ladhe, Tushar Ahuja, Suraj Kharage,
Dipesh Pandit, and Mark Dilger.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoaYZbz0=Yk797aOJwkGJC-LK3iXn+wzzMx7KdwNpZhS5g@mail.gmail.com
The base backup code has accumulated a healthy number of new
features over the years, but it's becoming increasingly difficult
to maintain and further enhance that code because there's no
real separation of concerns. For example, the code that
understands knows the details of how we send data to the client
using the libpq protocol is scattered throughout basebackup.c,
rather than being centralized in one place.
To try to improve this situation, introduce a new 'bbsink' object
which acts as a recipient for archives generated during the base
backup progress and also for the backup manifest. This commit
introduces three types of bbsink: a 'copytblspc' bbsink forwards the
backup to the client using one COPY OUT operation per tablespace and
another for the manifest, a 'progress' bbsink performs command
progress reporting, and a 'throttle' bbsink performs rate-limiting.
The 'progress' and 'throttle' bbsink types also forward the data to a
successor bbsink; at present, the last bbsink in the chain will
always be of type 'copytblspc'. There are plans to add more types
of 'bbsink' in future commits.
This abstraction is a bit leaky in the case of progress reporting,
but this still seems cleaner than what we had before.
Patch by me, reviewed and tested by Andres Freund, Sumanta Mukherjee,
Dilip Kumar, Suraj Kharage, Dipesh Pandit, Tushar Ahuja, Mark Dilger,
and Jeevan Ladhe.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZGwR=ZVWFeecncubEyPdwghnvfkkdBe9BLccLSiqdf9Q@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZvqk7UuzxsX1xjJRmMGkqoUGYTZLDCH8SmU1xTPr1Xig@mail.gmail.com
Michael Paquier
Robert Haas
Bruce Momjian