Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Claudio Freire
Subject Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup
Date
Msg-id CAGTBQpb5cer1=yn1HZF9-FeZBEPtLMarcFVPWdwmgVuBUD=nXg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup  (desmodemone <desmodemone@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 5:26 AM, desmodemone <desmodemone@gmail.com> wrote:
> b) yes the backends need to update the map, but it's in memory, and as I
> show, could be very small if we you chunk of blocks.If we not compress the
> map, I not think could be a bottleneck.

If it's in memory, it's not crash-safe. For something aimed at
backups, I think crash safety is a requirement. So it's at least one
extra I/O per commit, maybe less if many can be coalesced at
checkpoints, but I wouldn't count on it too much, because worst cases
are easy to come by (sparse enough updates).

I think this could be pegged on WAL replay / checkpoint stuff alone,
so it would be very asynchronous, but not free.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)
Next
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers