From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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 18:47:47 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobUXtVj=Mu+9d_PEF=zp+1bV+3VDbs+Ni7UyHXqZPfOSA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
That should be a problem; logical decoding added a mechanism for
retaining WAL until decoding is done with it, and if it needs to be
extended a bit further, so be it.
> One more thing, what will happen for unlogged tables with such a
> mechanism?
As Michael Paquier points out, it doesn't matter, because that data
will be gone anyway.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-07-31 18:50:25 | Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-07-31 18:41:45 | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |