On 6 August 2014 03:16, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > 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.
That would require you to store that WAL, which is something we hope to avoid. Plus if you did store it, you'd need to retrieve it from long term storage, which is what we hope to avoid. > I am thinking we need a wiki page to outline all these options. There is a Wiki page. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
