From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Streaming a base backup from master |
Date: | 2010-09-03 15:01:36 |
Message-ID: | 22881.1283526096@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 03/09/10 15:16, Greg Stark wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> * We need a smarter way to do pg_start/stop_backup() with this. At the
>>> moment, you can only have one backup running at a time, but we shouldn't
>>> have that limitation with this built-in mechanism.
>>
>> Well there's no particular reason we couldn't support having multiple
>> pg_start_backup() pending either. It's just not usually something
>> people have need so far.
> The backup label file makes that hard. There can be only one at a time.
I don't actually see a use-case for streaming multiple concurrent
backups. How many people are going to be able to afford that kind of
load on the master's I/O bandwidth?
Certainly for version 1, it would be sufficient to throw an error if
someone tries to start a backup while another one is in progress.
*Maybe*, down the road, we'd want to relax it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-09-03 15:02:06 | Re: Streaming a base backup from master |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-03 14:51:37 | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |