Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC]
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZTThYRPWaDc8OXaMLbaxCBJtcdex+NRCunXM5xs=yZBg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC]  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC]  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: Tracking of page changes for backup purposes. PTRACK [POC]
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Bitmap table scan cost per page formula