>Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > We have something much better, called WAL. If people want to keep > their backup current, they should use that after getting the base > backup up and working. Unless you want to provide support for Point In Time Recovery without excessive recovery times. > We don't need to support this for the base backup, imv. We found that making a hard-link copy of the previous base backup and using rsync to bring it up to date used 1% the WAN bandwidth as sending a complete, compressed base backup. Just sending modified files in their entirety would have bought the first order of magnitude; recognizing the unchanged portions buys the second order of magnitude. > In any case, it's certainly not something required for an initial > implementation.. No disagreement there; but sometimes it pays to know where you might want to go, so you don't do something to make further development in that direction unnecessarily difficult. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
