Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup

[Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>]

"Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> 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.

Why wouldn't you implement that by putting N postmasters onto the backup
server?  It'd be far more efficient than the proposed patch, which by
aborting at random points is essentially guaranteeing a whole lot of
useless re-replay of WAL whenever you restart it.

			regards, tom lane