* Tatsuo Ishii (ishii@postgresql.org) wrote:
> Why do you think WAL compressor idea is more scalable? I really want
> to know why. Besides the unlogged tables issue, I can accept the idea
> if WAL based solution is much more efficient. If there's no perfect,
> ideal solution, we need to prioritize things. My #1 priority is
> allowing to create incremental backup against TB database, and the
> backup file should be small enough and the time to create it is
> acceptable. I just don't know why scanning WAL stream is much cheaper
> than recording modified page information.
Because that's what the WAL *is*..?
Why would you track what's changed twice?
Thanks,
Stephen
