| 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 20:26:30 |
| Message-ID: | 18412.1158783990@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-09-20 20:48:38 | Re: TODO: Fix CREATE CAST on DOMAINs |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2006-09-20 20:25:21 | Re: Units in postgresql.conf.sample |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-20 20:49:01 | Re: [PATCHES] Include file in regress.c |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-09-20 20:20:18 | Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup |