From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 548F01FF2AA for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2024 15:55:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 603B49728; Wed, 3 Jul 2024 15:55:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 15:55:12 +0200 From: Gabriel Goller To: Christian Ebner Message-ID: <20240703135512.qasjmnjnmrsqlupd@luna.proxmox.com> References: <20240703131632.307752-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <1304461813.3688.1720014416614@webmail.proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1304461813.3688.1720014416614@webmail.proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.055 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup] api: list-snapshots improvements X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Cc: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" On 03.07.2024 15:46, Christian Ebner wrote: >Hi, some initial high level comments, did not test this just yet. > >You touch several completely unrelated thing in this patch. I feel that this should be split into at least 3-4 patches: Sure, I can do that. I just didn't want to pollute the mailing list with a bunch of one-line fixes :) >- fixing the typo >- removing the unsafe block (although this feels like Wolfgang did this on purpose to make a caller aware of possible consequences, see commit message for a577d7d8). >- avoid double retrial of protected flag, (can we also assure that this is not done on purpose, to avoid possible races?) >- refactor of `full_path` > >Also, can you see a noticeable difference in listing time for groups with a larger number of backups? >Please give some ballpark figures if so. Hmm yeah, I can write some benchmarks quickly, shouldn't be a lot though, some 100-200 ms maybe. _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel