Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC]
| От | Pavel Stehule |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC] |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFj8pRBC5WutOAvvLy8JvN4NJzmi7xMOSR+ro0spe6uGGK5vUw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC] (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC]
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
2017-12-20 21:18 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.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.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: