| From: | Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marco Nenciarini <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, desmodemone <desmodemone(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup |
| Date: | 2014-08-07 17:29:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAHNtfO4Dz0D4W3xUf_iyCXbQDKdcxU6LkG3hbHjiDbHbh9MLSA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Marco,
> With the current full backup procedure they are backed up, so I think
> that having them backed up with a rsync-like algorithm is what an user
> would expect for an incremental backup.
Exactly. I think a simple, flexible and robust method for file based
incremental backup is all we need. I am confident it could be done for
9.5.
I would like to quote every single word Simon said. Block level
incremental backup (with Robert's proposal) is definitely the ultimate
goal for effective and efficient physical backups. I see file level
incremental backup as a very good "compromise", a sort of intermediate
release which could nonetheless produce a lot of benefits to our user
base, for years to come too.
Thanks,
Gabriele
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nicolas Barbier | 2014-08-07 18:04:47 | Re: Minmax indexes |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-08-07 17:16:15 | Re: A worst case for qsort |