On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >> On 5 August 2014 22:38, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thinking some more, there seems like this whole store-multiple-LSNs >> thing is too much. We can still do block-level incrementals just by >> using a single LSN as the reference point. We'd still need a complex >> file format and a complex file reconstruction program, so I think that >> is still "next release". We can call that INCREMENTAL BLOCK LEVEL. > > Yes, that's the approach taken by pg_rman for its block-level > incremental backup. Btw, I don't think that the CPU cost to scan all > the relation files added to the one to rebuild the backups is worth > doing it on large instances. File-level backup would cover most of the > use cases that people face, and simplify footprint on core code. With > a single LSN as reference position of course to determine if a file > needs to be backup up of course, if it has at least one block that has > been modified with a LSN newer than the reference point.
It's the finding of that block that begs optimizing IMO. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
