Hi Marco, could you please send an updated version the patch against the current HEAD in order to facilitate reviewers?
Thanks, Gabriele -- Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia - Managing Director PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support gabriele.bartol...@2ndquadrant.it | www.2ndQuadrant.it 2015-01-07 11:00 GMT+01:00 Marco Nenciarini <marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it >: > Il 06/01/15 14:26, Robert Haas ha scritto: > > I suggest leaving this out altogether for the first version. I can > > think of three possible ways that we can determine which blocks need > > to be backed up. One, just read every block in the database and look > > at the LSN of each one. Two, maintain a cache of LSN information on a > > per-segment (or smaller) basis, as you suggest here. Three, scan the > > WAL generated since the incremental backup and summarize it into a > > list of blocks that need to be backed up. This last idea could either > > be done when the backup is requested, or it could be done as the WAL > > is generated and used to populate the LSN cache. In the long run, I > > think some variant of approach #3 is likely best, but in the short > > run, approach #1 (scan everything) is certainly easiest. While it > > doesn't optimize I/O, it still gives you the benefit of reducing the > > amount of data that needs to be transferred and stored, and that's not > > nothing. If we get that much working, we can improve things more > > later. > > > > Hi, > The patch now uses the approach #1, but I've just sent a patch that uses > the #2 approach. > > 54ad016e.9020...@2ndquadrant.it > > Regards, > Marco > > -- > Marco Nenciarini - 2ndQuadrant Italy > PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support > marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it | www.2ndQuadrant.it > >
