| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC] |
| Date: | 2017-12-20 20:18:04 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZTThYRPWaDc8OXaMLbaxCBJtcdex+NRCunXM5xs=yZBg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > So I'm somewhat hesitant to proclaim option 5 as the clear winner, here.
>>
>> I agree. I think (4) is better.
>
> Can depends on load? For smaller intensive updated databases the 5 can be
> optimal, for large less updated databases the 4 can be better.
It seems to me that the difference is that (4) tracks which pages have
changed in the background, and (5) does it in the foreground. Why
would we want the latter?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-20 20:25:58 | Re: Bitmap table scan cost per page formula |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-12-20 20:15:44 | Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC] |