>Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> We have something much better, called WAL. If people want to keep
> their backup current, they should use that after getting the base
> backup up and working.
Unless you want to provide support for Point In Time Recovery
without excessive recovery times.
> We don't need to support this for the base backup, imv.
We found that making a hard-link copy of the previous base backup
and using rsync to bring it up to date used 1% the WAN bandwidth as
sending a complete, compressed base backup. Just sending modified
files in their entirety would have bought the first order of
magnitude; recognizing the unchanged portions buys the second order
of magnitude.
> In any case, it's certainly not something required for an initial
> implementation..
No disagreement there; but sometimes it pays to know where you might
want to go, so you don't do something to make further development in
that direction unnecessarily difficult.
-Kevin