On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> If you have the two technologies, you could teach them to work in
> conjunction: you set up WAL replication, and tell the WAL compressor to
> prune updates for high-update tables (avoid useless traffic), then use
> incremental backup to back these up. This seems like it would have a
> lot of moving parts and be rather bug-prone, though.
I don't think it would be worse than storage-manager-level stuff. And
though more complex, don't underestimate the pros: lower footprint,
better scalability, and you get consistent online backups.
That mechanism can also be used to distill a list of modified pages,
mind you, instead of hooking into storage-manager stuff. The pro
there, is that it wouldn't amplify writes. The con there is that you
don't get consistent online backups.
