On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 09:17:35AM +0900, Michael Paquier 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
Well, if you scan the WAL files from the previous backup, that will tell you what pages that need incremental backup. I am thinking we need a wiki page to outline all these options. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
