| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marco Nenciarini <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: File based Incremental backup v8 |
| Date: | 2015-03-05 04:42:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20150305044247.GF24491@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 01:25:13PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> Yeah, it might make the situation better than today. But I'm afraid that
> >> many users might get disappointed about that behavior of an incremental
> >> backup after the release...
> >
> > I don't get what do you mean here. Can you elaborate this point?
>
> The proposed version of LSN-based incremental backup has some limitations
> (e.g., every database files need to be read even when there is no modification
> in database since last backup, and which may make the backup time longer than
> users expect) which may disappoint users. So I'm afraid that users who can
> benefit from the feature might be very limited. IOW, I'm just sticking to
> the idea of timestamp-based one :) But I should drop it if the majority in
> the list prefers the LSN-based one even if it has such limitations.
We need numbers on how effective each level of tracking will be. Until
then, the patch can't move forward.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff | 2015-03-05 06:59:12 | about our photo clipping path |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2015-03-05 04:25:13 | Re: File based Incremental backup v8 |