On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:55 AM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:25:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I think there's absolutely no point in spending more time on this for
>> > 9.5. At least 4 committers have looked at it and none of them are
>> > convinced by the current design; feedback from almost half a year ago
>> > hasn't been incorporated; obviously-needed parts of the patch
>> > (pg_restorebackup) are missing weeks after the last CF deadline.
>> > Let's mark this Rejected in the CF app and move on.
>>
>> Agreed. I lost a bit interest in this patch lately, but if all the
>> necessary parts of the patch were not posted before the CF deadline
>> that's not something we should consider for integration at this point.
>> Let's give it a couple of months of fresh air and, Gabriele, I am sure
>> you will be able to come back with something far more advanced for the
>> first CF of 9.6.
>
> What's the latest on this patch?
My guess is that Marco and Gabriele are working on something directly
for barman, the backup tool they use, with a differential backup
implementation based on tracking blocks modified by WAL records (far
faster for large data sets than scanning all the relation files of
PGDATA).
Regards,
--
Michael
