Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 09:17:35AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On 5 August 2014 22:38, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)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.

I am thinking we need a wiki page to outline all these options.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +