| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups |
| Date: | 2011-01-13 21:32:40 |
| Message-ID: | 4D2F6F78.5000500@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13.01.2011 22:57, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 1/13/11 12:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> That's going to depend on the situation. If the database fits in
>> memory, then it's just going to work. If it fits on disk, it's less
>> obvious whether it'll be good or bad, but an arbitrary limitation here
>> doesn't serve us well.
>
> FWIW, if we had this feature right now in 9.0 we (PGX) would be using
> it. We run into the case of DB in memory, multiple slaves fairly often
> these days.
Anyway, here's an updated patch with all the known issues fixed.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| multiple_inprogress_backups1-2.patch | text/x-diff | 21.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-13 21:54:01 | Re: reviewers needed! |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-13 21:32:25 | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |