On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * 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
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.
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-09-03 15:43:50|
|Subject: Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay,
Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!)|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-09-03 15:38:35|
|Subject: Re: Streaming a base backup from master|