Re: [RFC] Incremental backup v3: incremental PoC

Hi Marco,

could you please send an updated version the patch against the current
HEAD in order to facilitate reviewers?

Thanks,
Gabriele

--
Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia - Managing Director
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)it | www.2ndQuadrant.it

2015-01-07 11:00 GMT+01:00 Marco Nenciarini <marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it
>:

> Il 06/01/15 14:26, Robert Haas ha scritto:
> > I suggest leaving this out altogether for the first version. I can
> > think of three possible ways that we can determine which blocks need
> > to be backed up. One, just read every block in the database and look
> > at the LSN of each one. Two, maintain a cache of LSN information on a
> > per-segment (or smaller) basis, as you suggest here. Three, scan the
> > WAL generated since the incremental backup and summarize it into a
> > list of blocks that need to be backed up. This last idea could either
> > be done when the backup is requested, or it could be done as the WAL
> > is generated and used to populate the LSN cache. In the long run, I
> > think some variant of approach #3 is likely best, but in the short
> > run, approach #1 (scan everything) is certainly easiest. While it
> > doesn't optimize I/O, it still gives you the benefit of reducing the
> > amount of data that needs to be transferred and stored, and that's not
> > nothing. If we get that much working, we can improve things more
> > later.
> >
>
> Hi,
> The patch now uses the approach #1, but I've just sent a patch that uses
> the #2 approach.
>
> 54AD016E(dot)9020406(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it
>
> Regards,
> Marco
>
> --
> Marco Nenciarini - 2ndQuadrant Italy
> PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
> marco(dot)nenciarini(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)it | www.2ndQuadrant.it
>
>