| From: | James Keener <jim(at)jimkeener(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org,Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464(at)mail(dot)com>,Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Kellner Thiemo <thiemo(dot)kellner(at)usb(dot)ch>,"pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL suitable? |
| Date: | 2017-12-19 16:20:09 |
| Message-ID: | DF980223-6980-465C-A988-1A7362EAF3A1@jimkeener.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Would a storage block level incremental like zfs work?
On December 19, 2017 11:12:48 AM EST, Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464(at)mail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> There are multiple solutions to doing incremental backups with
>> PostgreSQL, so I'm not sure why you're saying that they don't exist,
>> because that's really not accurate.
>
>PG's incremental backup is essentially WAL logs applied to a point in
>time. I am talking about true incremental backup where the db backs up
>only the changed blocks after the last full backup. In a DW system
>where most of the time it is append only, it makes a huge difference in
>backup time.
>
>I believe there is one tool which looks at mtime/atime of each of the
>data file and takes the decision to back it up or lot. Not sure how
>robust it is.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-12-19 16:22:30 | Re: PostgreSQL suitable? |
| Previous Message | Rahul Saha | 2017-12-19 16:17:43 | Re: AWS Aurora and PG 10 |