From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Streaming a base backup from master |
Date: | 2010-09-03 15:41:32 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikgUoDyU=JHY20sGgJ+TUZRgn4i6yv3m2i+DUnz@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> * Kevin Grittner (Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov) wrote:
>> While 1GB granularity would be OK, I doubt it's optimal; I think CRC
>> checks for smaller chunks might be worthwhile. My gut feel is that
>> somewhere in the 64kB to 1MB range would probably be optimal for us,
>> although the "sweet spot" will depend on how the database is used.
>> A configurable or self-adjusting size would be cool.
>
> We have something much better, called WAL. If people want to keep their
> backup current, they should use that after getting the base backup up
> and working. We don't need to support this for the base backup, imv.
>
> In any case, it's certainly not something required for an initial
> implementation..
While I'm certainly not knocking WAL, it's not difficult to think of
cases where being able to incrementally update a backup saves you an
awful lot of bandwidth.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-03 15:43:50 | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-09-03 15:38:35 | Re: Streaming a base backup from master |