Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC]

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC]
Date: 2017-12-19 00:36:29
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSwu2VzSajwQsMNh1S_EG1dGj+d38V1hg3vVgYLXmgXrQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova
<a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> Patches for v 10.1 and v 9.6 are attached.

Why no patch for HEAD? If you are planning to show some performance
numbers of some kind you had better run on the latest development
version, which would also avoid interference with any load bottleneck
that could have been removed during the development of v10 or v11. At
quick glance the patch proposed does not interfere with such areas.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-12-19 00:40:17 Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC]
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-12-19 00:29:14 Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted.