Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 21:44:32
Message-ID: 20060920214431.GC28987@nasby.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:26:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> > An advantage to being able to stop the server is that you could have one
> > server processing backups for multiple PostgreSQL clusters by going
> > through them 1 (or more likely, 2, 4, etc) at a time, essentially
> > providing N+1 capability.
>
> Why wouldn't you implement that by putting N postmasters onto the backup
> server? It'd be far more efficient than the proposed patch, which by
> aborting at random points is essentially guaranteeing a whole lot of
> useless re-replay of WAL whenever you restart it.

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.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-09-20 21:50:48 Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-09-20 21:43:40 Re: Phantom Command ID

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-09-20 21:50:48 Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-09-20 20:49:01 Re: [PATCHES] Include file in regress.c