| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Implementing incremental backup |
| Date: | 2013-06-19 23:55:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20130619235546.GA23363@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tatsuo Ishii (ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org) wrote:
> Why do you think WAL compressor idea is more scalable? I really want
> to know why. Besides the unlogged tables issue, I can accept the idea
> if WAL based solution is much more efficient. If there's no perfect,
> ideal solution, we need to prioritize things. My #1 priority is
> allowing to create incremental backup against TB database, and the
> backup file should be small enough and the time to create it is
> acceptable. I just don't know why scanning WAL stream is much cheaper
> than recording modified page information.
Because that's what the WAL *is*..?
Why would you track what's changed twice?
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2013-06-20 00:04:12 | Re: Implementing incremental backup |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-06-19 23:43:24 | Re: Implementing incremental backup |