| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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 20:29:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBC5WutOAvvLy8JvN4NJzmi7xMOSR+ro0spe6uGGK5vUw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2017-12-20 21:18 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 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?
>
Isn't more effective hold this info in Postgres than in backup sw? Then any
backup sw can use this implementation.
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-12-20 20:44:18 | Re: Letting plpgsql in on the fun with the new expression eval stuff |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-20 20:29:14 | Re: Bitmap table scan cost per page formula |