| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Streaming a base backup from master |
| Date: | 2010-09-06 22:09:50 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimt_xE8rOZ5d6yvuTNNDdw2p9FfqSXr+EtujHYf@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> I think that description pretty much settles the question in my mind.
> The implementation choice of scanning the WAL to find all the changed
> blocks is more relevant to the use cases where incremental backups are
> useful. If you still have to read the entire database then there's not
> all that much to be gained except storage space. If you scan the WAL
> then you can avoid reading most of your large data warehouse to
> generate the incremental and only read the busy portion.
If you can scan the WAL, why wouldn't you just replay it?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-09-06 22:31:14 | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-06 22:08:40 | Re: 9.1alpha1 bundled -- please verify |