Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup
Date: 2006-09-20 21:50:48
Message-ID: 19737.1158789048@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
"Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> My thought is that in many envoronments it would take much beefier
> hardware to support N postmasters running simultaneously than to cycle
> through them periodically bringing the backups up-to-date.

How you figure that?  The cycling approach will require more total I/O
due to extra page re-reads ... particularly if it's built on a patch
like this one that abandons work-in-progress at arbitrary points.

A postmaster running WAL replay does not require all that much in the
way of CPU resources.  It is going to need I/O comparable to the gross
I/O load of its master, but cycling isn't going to reduce that at all.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-09-20 22:07:29
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-09-20 21:44:32
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-09-20 22:07:29
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-09-20 21:44:32
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group