maria-developers team mailing list archive

[Kristian Nielsen <knielsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Philip Stoev" <pstoev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> The test is basically the same you already did for non-blocking `mysqldump
>> --master-data --single-transaction` used to provision a slave, but using
>> XtraBackup instead of mysqldump.

> Done, a test was created and installed in buildbot, where it passes. I
> am using xtradb from RPM.

Cool, great stuff!

>> Now, to do this we would need to be able to use XtraBackup. I am
>> wondering if
>> it wouldn't make sense to at the same time include XtraBackup into
>> MariaDB?
>> XtraBackup seems to me quite mature already, and a very good product
>> besides. It is arguably long overdue for us to include it.

> Including XtraBackup means including in MariaDB a yet another piece of
> software that, even if it is of reasonable quality, has a different
> development and release cycle:
>
> - we have 3 different innnodb directories, innodb, innodb_plugin and xtradb
> - they have 3 different xtrabackup binaries, one for 5.0, one for 5.1
> and one for 5.5
> - they provide 5 patches to patch Innodb with. As discussed in IRC, I
> tried the most intuitive combination and it did not patch correctly. I
> did not try your renaming trick;
> - in launchpad, they have a bunch of trees: a trunk tree , a 1.6 tree
> and a windows tree, both of which have seen pushes in the last 1 week

Yes, those are good points.

So if users can just install xtrabackup stand-alone like from a Percona
package, that might actually be better than including it in MariaDB.

Once we get into distros, it will in any case be seamless, users will just
eg. apt-get install xtrabackup, and it will not matter from where it comes.
(and we could depends: or recommends: it from the mariadb-server package).

Thanks!

 - Kristian.