Re: On markers of changed data

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: On markers of changed data
Date: 2017-10-07 08:35:03
Message-ID: 20171007083503.ngoqjkoewqqcgwzb@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier wrote:

> That’s actually what pg_rman is doing for what it calls incremental
> backups (perhaps that would be differential backup in PG
> terminology?), and the performance is bad as you can imagine. We could
> have a dedicated LSN map to do such things with 4 bytes per page. I am
> still not convinced that this much facility and the potential bug
> risks are worth it though, Postgres already knows about differential
> backups if you shape it as a delta of WAL segments. I think that, in
> order to find a LSN map more convincing, we should find first other
> use cases where it could become useful. Some use cases may pop up with
> VACUUM, but I have not studied the question hard enough...

The case I've discussed with barman developers is a large database
(couple dozen of TBs should be enough) where a large fraction (say 95%)
is read-only but there are many changes to the active part of the data,
so that WAL is more massive than size of active data.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Seltenreich 2017-10-07 10:00:00 Re: parallel worker (PID ) exited with exit code 1
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2017-10-07 08:31:06 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple