Re: Changeset Extraction v7.6.1

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Changeset Extraction v7.6.1
Date: 2014-06-01 05:57:32
Message-ID: 20140601055732.GF4286@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-06-01 00:50:58 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 5/31/14, 9:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2014-02-21 15:14:15 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> >>On 2/17/14, 7:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >>>But do you really want to keep that snapshot around long enough to
> >>>copy the entire database? I bet you don't: if the database is big,
> >>>holding back xmin for long enough to copy the whole thing isn't likely
> >>>to be fun.
> >>
> >>I can confirm that this would be epic fail, at least for londiste. It takes about 3 weeks for a new copy of a ~2TB database. There's no way that'd work with one snapshot. (Granted, copy performance in londiste is rather lackluster, but still...)
> >
> >I'd marked this email as todo:
> >If you have such a huge database you can, with logical decoding at
> >least, use a basebackup using pg_basebackup or pg_start/stop_backup()
> >and roll forwards from that... That'll hopefull make such huge copies
> >much faster.

> Just keep in mind that one of the use cases for logical replication is upgrades.

Should still be fine. Make a physical copy; pg_upgrade; catchup via
logical rep.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2014-06-01 07:26:26 Re: avoiding tuple copying in btree index builds
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2014-06-01 05:50:58 Re: Changeset Extraction v7.6.1