On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 01:25:13PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > >> Yeah, it might make the situation better than today. But I'm afraid that > >> many users might get disappointed about that behavior of an incremental > >> backup after the release... > > > > I don't get what do you mean here. Can you elaborate this point? > > The proposed version of LSN-based incremental backup has some limitations > (e.g., every database files need to be read even when there is no modification > in database since last backup, and which may make the backup time longer than > users expect) which may disappoint users. So I'm afraid that users who can > benefit from the feature might be very limited. IOW, I'm just sticking to > the idea of timestamp-based one :) But I should drop it if the majority in > the list prefers the LSN-based one even if it has such limitations.
We need numbers on how effective each level of tracking will be. Until then, the patch can't move forward. -- 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
