From: | Phoenix Kiula <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> |
Cc: | Gregg Jaskiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robins Tharakan <robins(dot)tharakan(at)comodo(dot)com>, PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Incremental backup with RSYNC or something? |
Date: | 2011-11-13 15:10:16 |
Message-ID: | CAFWfU=tzkR9PSFaCirimq8=AB-bMUmfZJw3ZixtZ=JfUu_h23g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> wrote:
> On 11/13/2011 07:51 AM, Gregg Jaskiewicz wrote:
>>
>> pg_dump -Fc already compresses, no need to pipe through gzip
>>
>
> I dont think that'll use two core's if you have 'em. The pipe method will
> use two cores, so it should be faster. (assuming you are not IO bound).
I am likely IO bound. Anyway, what's the right code for the pipe
method? I think the earlier recommendation had a problem as "-Fc"
already does compression.
Is this the right code for the FASTEST possible backup if I don't care
about the size of the dump, all I want is that it's not CPU-intensive
(with the tables I wish excluded) --
BKPFILE=/backup/pg/dbback-${DATA}.sql
pg_dump MYDB -T excludetable1 -T excludetable2 -U MYDB_MYDB | gzip
--fast > ${BKPFILE}
Thanks!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-11-13 15:33:45 | Re: [SPAM?]: Re: CLONE DATABASE (with copy on write?) |
Previous Message | Clark C. Evans | 2011-11-13 15:07:40 | Re: CLONE DATABASE (with copy on write?) |