This commit changes some of the bbstreamer files and pg_dump to use the
same style as a few other places (like common/compression.c), where the
name of the compression method is not part of the string, but an
argument of it. This reduces a bit the translation work with less
string patterns.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/Y5/5tdK+4n3clvtU@paquier.xyz
PG_COMPRESSION_OPTION_LEVEL is removed from the compression
specification logic, and instead the compression level is always
assigned with each library's default if nothing is directly given. This
centralizes the checks on the compression methods supported by a given
build, and always assigns a default compression level when parsing a
compression specification. This results in complaining at an earlier
stage than previously if a build supports a compression method or not,
aka when parsing a specification in the backend or the frontend, and not
when processing it. zstd, lz4 and zlib are able to handle in their
respective routines setting up the compression level the case of a
default value, hence the backend or frontend code (pg_receivewal or
pg_basebackup) has now no need to know what the default compression
level should be if nothing is specified: the logic is now done so as the
specification parsing assigns it. It can also be enforced by passing
down a "level" set to the default value, that the backend will accept
(the replication protocol is for example able to handle a command like
BASE_BACKUP (COMPRESSION_DETAIL 'gzip:level=-1')).
This code simplification fixes an issue with pg_basebackup --gzip
introduced by ffd5365, where the tarball of the streamed WAL segments
would be created as of pg_wal.tar.gz with uncompressed contents, while
the intention is to compress the segments with gzip at a default level.
The origin of the confusion comes from the handling of the default
compression level of gzip (-1 or Z_DEFAULT_COMPRESSION) and the value of
0 was getting assigned, which is what walmethods.c would consider
as equivalent to no compression when streaming WAL segments with its tar
methods. Assigning always the compression level removes the confusion
of some code paths considering a value of 0 set in a specification as
either no compression or a default compression level.
Note that 010_pg_basebackup.pl has to be adjusted to skip a few tests
where the shape of the compression detail string for client and
server-side compression was checked using gzip. This is a result of the
code simplification, as gzip specifications cannot be used if a build
does not support it.
Reported-by: Tom Lane
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1400032.1662217889@sss.pgh.pa.us
Backpatch-through: 15
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
wrasse, at least, moans about the lack of any "return" statement
in these functions. You'd think pretty much everything would
know that exit(1) doesn't return, but evidently not.
Get rid of the separate "FATAL" log level, as it was applied
so inconsistently as to be meaningless. This mostly involves
s/pg_log_fatal/pg_log_error/g.
Create a macro pg_fatal() to handle the common use-case of
pg_log_error() immediately followed by exit(1). Various
modules had already invented either this or equivalent macros;
standardize on pg_fatal() and apply it where possible.
Invent the ability to add "detail" and "hint" messages to a
frontend message, much as we have long had in the backend.
Except where rewording was needed to convert existing coding
to detail/hint style, I have (mostly) resisted the temptation
to change existing message wording.
Patch by me. Design and patch reviewed at various stages by
Robert Haas, Kyotaro Horiguchi, Peter Eisentraut and
Daniel Gustafsson.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1363732.1636496441@sss.pgh.pa.us
Before this patch, there was some code that tried to make sure that the
buffer was always big enough at the start, and then asserted that it
didn't need to be enlarged later. However, the code to make sure it was
big enough at the start doesn't actually work, and therefore it was
possible to fail an assertion and crash later.
Remove the code that tries to make sure the buffer is always big enough
at the start in favor of enlarging the buffer as we go along whenever
that is necessary.
The mistake probably happened because, on the server side, we do
actually need to guarantee that the buffer is big enough at the start
to avoid subsequent resizings. However, in that case, the calling
code makes promises about how much data it will provide at once, but
here, that's not the case.
Report by Justin Pryzby. Analysis by me. Patch by Dipesh Pandit.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/20220330143536.GG28503@telsasoft.com
When we try to set the zstd compression level either on the client
or on the server, check for errors.
For any algorithm, on the client side, don't try to set the compression
level unless the user specified one. This was visibly broken for
zstd, which managed to set -1 rather than 0 in this case, but tidy
up the code for the other methods, too.
On the client side, if we fail to create a ZSTD_CCtx, exit after
reporting the error. Otherwise we'll dereference a null pointer.
Patch by me, reviewed by Dipesh Pandit.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZK3zLQUCGi1h4XZw4jHiAWtcACc+GsdJR1_Mc19jUjXA@mail.gmail.com
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
These tests were added recently, but older code tests USE_LZ4 rathr
than HAVE_LIBLZ4, so let's follow the established precedent. It
also seems more consistent with the intent of the configure tests,
since I think that the USE_* symbols are intended to correspond to
what the user requested, and the HAVE_* symbols to what configure
found while probing.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmoap+hTD2-QNPJLH4tffeFE8MX5+xkbFKMU3FKBy=ZSNKA@mail.gmail.com
LZ4 compression can now be performed on the client using
pg_basebackup -Ft --compress client-lz4, and LZ4 decompression of
a backup compressed on the server can be performed on the client
using pg_basebackup -Fp --compress server-lz4.
Dipesh Pandit, reviewed and tested by Jeevan Ladhe and Tushar Ahuja,
with a few corrections - and some documentation - by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAN1g5_FeDmiA9D8wdG2W6Lkq5CpubxOAqTmd2et9hsinTJtsMQ@mail.gmail.com
Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian
Michael Paquier
Tom Lane
Robert Haas