| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marco Nenciarini <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup |
| Date: | 2014-07-31 06:00:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Kcu+FOwBrab-U-922XF2S6roYWF_+ERpQHnhF7m8ofaA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> IMV, the way to eventually make this efficient is to have a background
> process that reads the WAL and figures out which data blocks have been
> modified, and tracks that someplace.
Nice idea, however I think to make this happen we need to ensure
that WAL doesn't get deleted/overwritten before this process reads
it (may be by using some existing param or mechanism) and
wal_level has to be archive or more.
One more thing, what will happen for unlogged tables with such a
mechanism?
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-07-31 06:26:57 | Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-07-31 05:59:45 | Re: Production block comparison facility |