Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature] #518

Open
jeje-ch opened this issue Mar 27, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

[Feature] #518

jeje-ch opened this issue Mar 27, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels

Comments

@jeje-ch
Copy link

jeje-ch commented Mar 27, 2024

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The current backup functionality names the backup concatenating backup and the datetime; it's fine if we backup all databases, but what's happen if we backup separately various databases ?

Describe the solution you'd like
It would be nice to be able to specify the backup filename (or at least part of it); the backup filename pattern could then be something like backup-{USER_INPUT_PART}-{DATETIME}.sql.
The USER_INPUT_PART could be taken from metadata.name or spec.name ("same" usage as in database.yaml)

Environment details:

  • Kubernetes version: 1.28
  • mariadb-operator version: v0.0.27
@mmontes11
Copy link
Member

Hey there @jeje-ch ! Thanks for the suggestion.

What about using the S3 prefix defined here?
https://github.com/mariadb-operator/mariadb-operator/blob/main/docs/API_REFERENCE.md#s3

Instead of relying in user input for the file format, you can just put them under a different directory withing the S3 bucket.

@jeje-ch
Copy link
Author

jeje-ch commented Apr 2, 2024

Thank you @mmontes11 , but what if we don't use S3 storage ? I would rather have a global option, independent of the storage used.
Btw, by user input, I mean user operating the mariadb operator... actually in my case = me :-) in all the case, the one setting the USER_INPUT_PART or the S3 prefix will be the same person

Thank you again,
Have a nice day

@mmontes11
Copy link
Member

but what if we don't use S3 storage ?

In that case a global option would make sense, yes. However, thinking know about the PVC storage, how likely is that you reuse the same PVC for storing different kinds of backups: all databases + specific databases? Although possible I think this is not ideal, not only because S3 is the recommended option for production, but also because you are mixing sources of backup in the same PVC.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

@jeje-ch
Copy link
Author

jeje-ch commented Apr 3, 2024

Oh, right... each Backup resource will have its own PVC - didn't think about that point ^^

In all the cases, having the ability to customize the file name would be nice as we can't suppose how the user will manage the backups after, eg in a 2nd level of backup.

Have a nice day

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants