Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup

["Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>]

On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:26:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "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.

My thought is that in many envoronments it would take much beefier
hardware to support N postmasters running simultaneously than to cycle
through them periodically bringing the backups up-to-date.
-- 
Jim Nasby                                            jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)