Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup
- From: "Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
- To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
- Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:20:18 -0500
- Message-id: <20060920202017.GY28987@nasby.net> <text/plain>
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > But why in the world would you want to stop the slave to do it? ISTM
> > we would want to arrange things so that you can copy the slave's files
> > while it continues replicating, just as with a standard base backup.
>
> You can do that, of course, but my thinking was that people would regard
> the technique as "unsupported", so I added a quick flag as a prototype.
An advantage to being able to stop the server is that you could have one
server processing backups for multiple PostgreSQL clusters by going
through them 1 (or more likely, 2, 4, etc) at a time, essentially
providing N+1 capability.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index