From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: On markers of changed data |
Date: | 2017-10-07 13:34:47 |
Message-ID: | 20171007133447.GE4628@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro, Michael,
* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org) wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
> > That’s actually what pg_rman is doing for what it calls incremental
> > backups (perhaps that would be differential backup in PG
> > terminology?), and the performance is bad as you can imagine. We could
> > have a dedicated LSN map to do such things with 4 bytes per page. I am
> > still not convinced that this much facility and the potential bug
> > risks are worth it though, Postgres already knows about differential
> > backups if you shape it as a delta of WAL segments. I think that, in
> > order to find a LSN map more convincing, we should find first other
> > use cases where it could become useful. Some use cases may pop up with
> > VACUUM, but I have not studied the question hard enough...
>
> The case I've discussed with barman developers is a large database
> (couple dozen of TBs should be enough) where a large fraction (say 95%)
> is read-only but there are many changes to the active part of the data,
> so that WAL is more massive than size of active data.
Yes, we've seen environments like that also.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-07 13:34:50 | Re: Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-10-07 13:26:21 | Re: Issue with logical replication: MyPgXact->xmin already is valid |