On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > IMV, the way to eventually make this efficient is to have a background > process that reads the WAL and figures out which data blocks have been > modified, and tracks that someplace.
Nice idea, however I think to make this happen we need to ensure that WAL doesn't get deleted/overwritten before this process reads it (may be by using some existing param or mechanism) and wal_level has to be archive or more. One more thing, what will happen for unlogged tables with such a mechanism? With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
