* Tatsuo Ishii (is...@postgresql.org) wrote: > Why do you think WAL compressor idea is more scalable? I really want > to know why. Besides the unlogged tables issue, I can accept the idea > if WAL based solution is much more efficient. If there's no perfect, > ideal solution, we need to prioritize things. My #1 priority is > allowing to create incremental backup against TB database, and the > backup file should be small enough and the time to create it is > acceptable. I just don't know why scanning WAL stream is much cheaper > than recording modified page information.
Because that's what the WAL *is*..?
Why would you track what's changed twice?
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
