On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:55 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:25:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I think there's absolutely no point in spending more time on this for >> > 9.5. At least 4 committers have looked at it and none of them are >> > convinced by the current design; feedback from almost half a year ago >> > hasn't been incorporated; obviously-needed parts of the patch >> > (pg_restorebackup) are missing weeks after the last CF deadline. >> > Let's mark this Rejected in the CF app and move on. >> >> Agreed. I lost a bit interest in this patch lately, but if all the >> necessary parts of the patch were not posted before the CF deadline >> that's not something we should consider for integration at this point. >> Let's give it a couple of months of fresh air and, Gabriele, I am sure >> you will be able to come back with something far more advanced for the >> first CF of 9.6. > > What's the latest on this patch?
My guess is that Marco and Gabriele are working on something directly for barman, the backup tool they use, with a differential backup implementation based on tracking blocks modified by WAL records (far faster for large data sets than scanning all the relation files of PGDATA). Regards, -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers