Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Streaming a base backup from master

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Streaming a base backup from master
Date: 2010-09-03 15:41:32
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Kevin,
> * Kevin Grittner (Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov) wrote:
>> While 1GB granularity would be OK, I doubt it's optimal; I think CRC
>> checks for smaller chunks might be worthwhile.  My gut feel is that
>> somewhere in the 64kB to 1MB range would probably be optimal for us,
>> although the "sweet spot" will depend on how the database is used.
>> A configurable or self-adjusting size would be cool.
> We have something much better, called WAL.  If people want to keep their
> backup current, they should use that after getting the base backup up
> and working.  We don't need to support this for the base backup, imv.
> In any case, it's certainly not something required for an initial
> implementation..

While I'm certainly not knocking WAL, it's not difficult to think of
cases where being able to incrementally update a backup saves you an
awful lot of bandwidth.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-09-03 15:43:50
Subject: Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!)
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-09-03 15:38:35
Subject: Re: Streaming a base backup from master

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group