| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup |
| Date: | 2006-09-20 21:44:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20060920214431.GC28987@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:26:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> > An advantage to being able to stop the server is that you could have one
> > server processing backups for multiple PostgreSQL clusters by going
> > through them 1 (or more likely, 2, 4, etc) at a time, essentially
> > providing N+1 capability.
>
> Why wouldn't you implement that by putting N postmasters onto the backup
> server? It'd be far more efficient than the proposed patch, which by
> aborting at random points is essentially guaranteeing a whole lot of
> useless re-replay of WAL whenever you restart it.
My thought is that in many envoronments it would take much beefier
hardware to support N postmasters running simultaneously than to cycle
through them periodically bringing the backups up-to-date.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-20 21:50:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-20 21:43:40 | Re: Phantom Command ID |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-20 21:50:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-20 20:49:01 | Re: [PATCHES] Include file in regress.c |