On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Robert Haas <
robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> IMV, the way to eventually make this efficient is to have a background
> process that reads the WAL and figures out which data blocks have been
> modified, and tracks that someplace.
Nice idea, however I think to make this happen we need to ensure
that WAL doesn't get deleted/overwritten before this process reads
it (may be by using some existing param or mechanism) and
wal_level has to be archive or more.
One more thing, what will happen for unlogged tables with such a
mechanism?